A United Nations report published on Wednesday said that Somali pirates received about 170 million dollars in ransoms in 2011, up from 110 million the previous year, with some of the money channeled into the world’s legal financial system.

The average ransom demanded to free a ship and crew stood at five million dollars and 10 million dollars for a tanker, the UN Office on Drug and Crime (UNODC) told the UN Security Council during a debate on piracy off the coast of Somalia.

UNODC’s executive director Yuri Fedotov said the laundering of ransom money had caused steep price increases in the Horn of Africa and surrounding regions.

Fedotov said he was not aware of any ideological link between pirates and Somalia’s al-Shabab insurgents, who were reported to have alligned themselves with al-Qaeda. The insurgents have been fighting the internationally backed government in Mogadishu.

UNODC, which works with countries fighting piracy, said there are currently 1,116 young Somali men being prosecuted for piracy by courts in 20 countries around the world. He said another 688 pirates are being prosecuted in African countries like Kenya, Somalia, Seychelles, Tanzania and Mauritius.

One leading expert on security in the Horn of Africa told Bikyamasr.com recently that the spike in piracy is a direct result in the lessening of media coverage of the region.

“Many editors in the US and Europe don’t feel it is a sexy story any longer and this means we are retreated from looking into the realities on the ground and the struggle against piracy in Somalia,” the official, a former US government security chief, told Bikyamasr.com.

Pirates often use international banks and reports in Cairo suggest they are using the Egyptian capital as a means of transmitting their funds globally through local banks here.

A Palestinian mother waited for her 16-year-old daughter to go to bed, tied a rope around her neck and strangled her to death. The woman murdered her own daughter after neighbours lied to her that the girl had an affair with their son.

The crime, which moved local residents, had remained underground for a while before it was revealed by police and a Palestinian female activist, who described it as “one of the most heinous criminal acts” in Palestine.

Just before the girl was buried, her aging grandmother (father’s mother), swayed slowly towards the coffin with tears rolling on her wrinkled skin, pulled out the girl’s hair and tied a white tape around it.

“This is more than a symbol of her chastity and purity…it is a proof,” the grandmother said to the mourners.

“Oh, my grandchild….go to your Lord because you will find rest and tranquility there…He is the one who can take revenge for you.”

The crime took place in Bait Oula, a tiny village in the West Bank town of Hebron and it was publicized several weeks after it was perpetrated by the mother.

Residents, who spoke to the Palestinian Arabic language daily Donia Al Watan, said the mother had already been cruel to her daughter as she used to force her to do all household work because she does not like female offspring.

It was this cruelty that made her rush and murder the girl without bothering to check if what neighbours said about her daughter was true.

“Just go and see your daughter’s pictures on my son’s mobile phone,” the neighbouring woman told the mother after an argument, according to the paper.

“The mother then started her plan to kill her daughter…residents said she had made her daughter clean the house for two days so the family will be prepared to receive would-be mourners on their daughter’s death.”

After the murder, the family left the girl in her bed all the night. In the morning, they went straight to hospital and said their daughter had died of heart attack.

“But doctors noticed the swelling in her neck and that her body was bluish….they informed the authorities, who later wrested a confession about the murder…the mother said she killed her to wash off shame and clean the family’s honour….a day later, hospital tests showed the girl was still virgin and pure….it was a hasty crime of honour, which has never been marred or even touched.”

sad to say. this, from the cute and wonderful website bitstrips.com has recently shown some disturbing fan art. what is so upsetting to me as an adult is to see children and teens idolizing this fiend. if you didn't know, ronnie radke is a musician who, along with his friend, killed an 18 year old. he fled the police and now faces charges.

who is more idiotic? the record labels or the man who is promoted by them or the children that adore him?

This morning I was thankful for dryer lint. I try to stay in a mindset of thankfulness, but . . . dryer lint?

DRYER LINT: fuzzy, useless stuff that collects in the dryer screen; an annoyance that must be cleaned out and thrown away. (from Jean’s book of definitions found only in her mind)

You see, I remember before dryer lint. I can remember baby blankets being hung on clothes lines with red, chapped, freezing hands. The baby blankets froze into pastel colored boards – hard as Formica on a cabinet top. I remember the winter wind jerking my hair and making my ears smart in the cold. It felt as though the wind was driving the cold right through my coat.

Later, I looked out the window to see that the wind had snapped the baby blankets in two – just like snapping a graham cracker – with the frozen halves tossing about the yard like tumble weeds in a desert ghost town. I had to run around the yard chasing after the pieces of blankets as the wind played “keep way” blowing them this way and that. Somehow I managed to get the broken blanket halves and bring them inside before they were blown clean out of sight.

Lest you think I am 839 years old, lots of people had automatic washing machines when I was growing up, but my mother was a Thoroughly Modern Millie. When I was a teenager we had the only washer/dryer combo machine I have ever seen. Daddy loved gadgets and inventions that saved time. He bought Mother a front loading machine that both washed and dried the clothes. I believe it was a Bendix, but it could have been a Maytag. We put in dry, dirty clothes and took out dry, clean clothes. And we had dryer lint. We were affluent and didn’t know it. See? I’m not that old.

"Afterworld" is the best motion comic EVER. highly recommended for people who struggle with high ethics in difficult situations. it's hard to watch a motion comic at first, but if you think of it as a "book on tape" then it's pretty darn interesting. it's the story of a man who walks from new york to seattle in search of his wife and his daughter after 99% of the people in the world mysteriously vanish. oh, and wins #1 spot of ANY post-apocalyptic story ever written in my mind: book, movie or otherwise. and trust me - i've seen and read more than anyone i know. the only drawback is that there is only ONE season.

Over the past few months, I have written several articles dealingwith the coming cashless society and the developing technologicalcontrol grid. I also have written about the surge of governmentattempts to gain access to and force the use of biometric data forthe purposes of identification, tracking, tracing, and surveillance.

Unfortunately, the reactions I receive from the general publicare almost always the same. While some recognize the danger, mostsimply deny that governments have the capability or even the desireto create a system in which the population is constantly monitored byvirtue of their most private and even biological information. Others,either gripped by apathy or ignorance, cannot believe that thegadgets given to them from the massive tech corporations are designedfor anything other than their entertainment and enjoyment.

However, current events in India should serve not just as a warning,but also as a foreshadowing of the events to come in the Westernworld, specifically the United States.

Recently, India has launched a nationwide program involving theallocation of a Unique Identification Number (UID) to every singleone of its 1.2 billion residents. Each of the numbers will be tiedto the biometric data of the recipient using three different formsof information - fingerprints, iris scans, and pictures of theface. All ten digits of the hand will be recorded, and both eyeswill be scanned.

The project will be directed by the Unique Identification Authorityof India (UIDAI) under the premise of preventing identity theftand social welfare fraud. India has rather extensive social welfareand safety net programs, ranging from medical support and heatingassistance to others aimed at helping the poor. Fraud is a rampantproblem in India, especially in relation to these programs due to apreponderance of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats who often stuffwelfare rolls with fake names and take the money for themselves.

Yet, although the justification for the billion person database isthe increased ability to accurately disperse social welfare benefits,it will not be just the Indian government's social welfare programsthat have access to and utilize the UIDAI. Indeed, even before theprogram has been completed, major banks, state/local governments, andother institutions are planning to use the UIDAI for identificationverification purposes and, of course, payment and accessibility.

As Aaron Saenz of the Singularity Hub writes:Yet the UID is going to be used for much more than social welfareprograms. The UIDAI is in discussion with many institutions (banks,local/state governments, etc.) to allow them to use the UID as ameans of identity verification. These institutions will pay theUIDAI some fee to cover costs and generate revenue. There seems tobe little doubt that once it is established, the UID will becomea preferred method (if not the preferred method) of identificationin India.

Saenz also sees the eventuality of the UIDAI program becoming ameans of payment and accessibility. He continues:

Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if the UID, with its biometricdata, could be used as a means of payment (when linked to a bankaccount), or as an access key to homes and cars. Purchase a mealwith your fingerprint and unlock your door with the twinkle inyour eye. Similar results could be expected in other nations thatadopted biometric identification systems.

Saenz, and other proponents of the UID (UIDAI), have been diligentin pointing out that the program "is just a number, not an IDcard." However, this claim is debatable. Saenz himself admitsthat State issued driver's licenses and identification cards willreference the UID information.

The question then becomes how much of that information will bereferenced, and how that will be accomplished? Will the informationbe included on the card? Will only part of the informationbe included on the card? Or will the card reference back to thedigital UID information to be then reconciled with the informationthat is present on the card? Although the UID is obviously goingto be utilized by other institutions outside of the social welfareprograms, no answers to these questions have been provided.

But, in the end, does it really matter if the information is collatedinto an ID card format if the government already has access tothat information digitally? More than likely, a national ID cardwill appear as a supplement to the database already created byUID. Regardless, the private biometric information has still beentaken from the individual. The database is still there.

Indeed, government "officials" have already stated that the databasewill be used by intelligence agencies for the purpose of monitoring"bank transactions, cellphone purchases and the movements ofindividuals and groups suspected of fomenting terrorism." This willbe very easy to do since the UID number will be entered anytimean individual "accesses services from government departments,driver's license offices and hospitals, as well as insurance,telecom, and banking companies."

Nevertheless, proponents have also touted the fact that, at thispoint, the UID program is optional. But the program will obviouslynot be optional for very long. As I have discussed in previousarticles, the introduction of a program such as a national IDcard, biometric data, or cashless payment technologies is alwaysfollowed by the program becoming mandatory. The ultimate goal ofan all-encompassing cashless surveillance program with no opt-outprovisions is always introduced by stealth and the GradualistTechnique.

At first, the program is introduced as a way to speed uptransactions, increase efficiency, and provide convenience. Soon,however, governments and businesses begin to transition out ofthe older methods of payment and identification and focus more onthe new technology. Identification using the traditional methodsremain as an option, but become viewed as cumbersome. Eventually,the alternative methods are phased out completely and mandatesreplace what was once a personal choice.

As soon as Indian banks, businesses, and government social serviceoffices begin to require identification using the UID, the abilityto remain off the system and lead what passes for a normal lifewill disappear.

This is exactly the intention with India's new biometric IDprogram. In fact, the cashless society is a stated goal of the UIDprogram. CEO of MindTree's IT Services, the company that was awardedthe government contract for development and maintenance of the UID,explained in an interview with ComputerWeekly that the "ID schemewill support a cashless society. He said all vendors will have abiometric reader and citizens can pay for things with a fingerprintscan. Even a bag of rice."

No doubt, even after such an admission by a man who was instrumentalin the development of the program, many who read this article willstill dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory."

Nonetheless, this new monumental data mining effort by the Indiangovernment dovetails with recent efforts in the Western worldto develop an electronic surveillance grid capable of tracking,tracing, and recording every single movement and communication ofevery single citizen within a nation's borders.

New technologies which are being introduced inside the UnitedStates, the UK, and Australia such as vein scanners, biometricemployee time and attendance systems, voice recognition devices,and behavior analysis systems are all geared toward Total InformationAwareness of every human being on the planet.

NYPD and the Department of Defense are using infrared technology toscan citizens. NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly says the gadget will bemounted on NYPD vans with 'the infrared rays shooting up the streetat the person.'

New York City's war on freedom could be adding a new weapon to itsarsenal, especially if NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly has his say.The head of the New York Police Department is working with thePentagon to secure body scanners to be used throughout the Big Apple.

If Kelly gets his wish, the city will be receiving a whole slewof Terahertz Imagining Detection scanners, a high-tech radiationdetector that measures the energy that is emitted from a persons'body. As CBS News reports, "It measures the energy radiating froma body up to 16 feet away, and can detect anything blocking it,like a gun."

What it can also do, however, is allow the NYPD to conduct illegalsearches by means of scanning anyone walking the streets of NewYork. Any object on your person could be privy to the eyes of thedetector, and any suspicious screens can prompt police officersto search someone on suspicion of having a gun, or anything elseunder their clothes.

According to Commissioner Kelly, the scanners would only be usedin "reasonably suspicious circumstances," but what constitutes"suspicious" in the eyes of the NYPD could greatly differ from whatthe 8 million residents of the five boroughs have in mind.The American Civil Liberties Union has already questioned the NYPDover what they say is an unnecessary precaution that raises moreissues than it solves.

"It's worrisome. It implicates privacy, the right to walk down thestreet without being subjected to a virtual pat-down by the PoliceDepartment when you're doing nothing wrong," Donna Lieberman ofthe NYCLU says to CBS.

The scanners also raise the question of whether such searches wouldeven be legal under the US Constitution. Under the Fourth Amendment,Americans are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. Doesscoping out what's on someone's person fall under the same categoryas a hands-on frisk, though?

To the NYPD, it might not matter. In the first quarter of 2011, morethan 161,000 innocent New Yorkers were stopped and interrogated onthe streets of the city. Figures released by the NYPD in May of lastyear revealed that of the over 180,000 stop-and-frisk encountersreported by the police department, 88 percent of them ended inneither an arrest nor a summons, leading many to assume that NewYork cops are already going above and beyond the law by searchingseemingly anyone they chose. Additionally, of those 161,000-plusvictims, around 84 percent were either black or Latino. At the time,the ACLU's Lieberman wrote, "The NYPD is turning black and brownneighborhoods across New York City into Constitution-free zones."

Given the alarming statistics, many already feel that officerswithin the ranks of the NYPD are overzealous with their monitoringof New Yorkers, regularly stopping them for unknown suspicions thatnearly nine-out-of-ten times prove false. With the installation ofthe Terahertz Imagining Detection scanners though, those invasivephysical searches wouldn't just be replaced with a touchless, moreintrusive monitoring, but will only allow New Yorkers one morereason to fear walking the streets.

"If they search you, you're not giving consent, so they can dowhat they want, meaning they can use that as an excuse to searchyou for other means. I don't think that's constitutional at all,"New Yorker Devan Thomas tells CBS.

"There are a lot of cameras already here, so as people walk they'rebeing filmed. And most of the time they don't know it,"adds JenniferBailly.

A lot is somewhat of an understatement. In Manhattan alone there areover 2,000 surveillance cameras, public and private, aimed at everypasserby. That number is the same as the tally of both McDonalds andStarbucks on the island, combined, multiplied by a factor of eight.

CBS News adds that the plan puts the NYPD in direct cooperation withthe Department of Defense, who is working on testing the scanners tofind a way to bring them to the streets. Such a joint effort opensup questions about other endeavors the Pentagon could have plannedout with the NYPD in the past, and certainly doesn't mark the firsttime that New York's boys in blue have worked hand-in-hand withfederal agencies. Last year a report surfaced linking the NYPD tothe CIA, as documents became available showing a connection betweenthe local police department and government spies installing secretagents into Muslim majority communities in New York.

Singapore, which has the world's highest density of wealthy people,may overtake Switzerland as the world's largest offshore financialcentre as early as 2015, according to a forecast by United Kingdomfinancial consultant Wealth Insight.

The report says that, as of the end of last year, Singapore hadjust over 150,000 high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs), each worthmore than US$1 million (S$1.29 million). That equates to about onein 30 Singaporeans, it says.

The combined wealth of Singapore's HNWIs is US$730 billion,equivalent to 274 per cent of the country's gross domesticproduct. Wealth Insight says HNWIs make up 2.9 per cent ofSingapore's population.

In the 10 years to 2010, the total assets managed by the Singapore'swealth management and private banking sector increased 11-fold toUS$550 billion.

"By 2015, Singapore is expected to have gained significant ground on,and could even surpass, Switzerland as the world's largest offshorefinancial centre," said Wealth Insight analyst Andrew Amoils.

"This will be fuelled by HNWI growth in the Asia-Pacific regionand global clients moving their offshore funds from other financialcentres to Singapore," he said in a statement.

Publisher's note:

If you require either a company bank account or a personal bankaccount in Singapore? We can accommadate you with several excellentbanks that do not require a personal visit to Singapore. We suggesta Belize company becausae unlike Singapore which requires annualtax filings, Belize does not.

Legislation meant to help the United States government locateoverseas assets of American tax cheats created little stir when itwas quietly slipped into a jobs bill last year.

But the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, as it isknown, is now causing alarm among businesses outside the UnitedStates that fear they will have to spend billions of dollars ayear to meet the greatly increased reporting burdens, startingin 2013. American expatriates also say the new filing demands aredaunting and overblown.

"Congress came in with a sledgehammer," said H. David Rosenbloom,a lawyer at Caplin and Drysdale in Washington and a formerinternational tax policy adviser for the Treasury Department. "TheFatca story is really kind of insane."

Congress created the act after the Justice Department's successfulpursuit in 2009 of UBS that resulted in the Swiss bank - which hadencouraged American citizens to set up secret offshore accounts- paying $780 million and turning over client details to avoidcriminal prosecution.

The law is meant to ensure Americans cannot use hidden trustsoverseas to evade taxes, a goal that is widely applauded. Butcritics say that it amounts to gross legislative overreach, andthat the $8 billion the Treasury expects to reap in taxes owedover 10 years pales next to the costs it will impose on foreigninstitutions. Those entities are being asked, in effect, to payfor the cost of tracking down American tax evaders.The law demands that virtually every financial firm outsidethe United States and any foreign company in which Americans arebeneficial owners must register with the Internal Revenue Service,check existing accounts in search of Americans and annually declaretheir compliance.

Noncompliance would be punished with a withholding charge of up to 30percent on any income and capital payments the company gets from theUnited States. Under the law, for example, if Deutsche Bank, havingagreed to register with the United States authorities in compliancewith the law, were to transfer $25 million to a noncompliant Polishbank, Deutsche Bank would be required to withhold part of that sum,transferring it to the I.R.S. The Polish recipient would then havethe option of challenging that withholding by filing an American taxreturn, claiming the money, despite not being an American citizen. Inpractice, tax experts say costs like that might drive the Polish bankout of business. "They're trying to force every financial institutionin the world to sign onto this regime," said Denise Hintzke, whoheads the global tax compliance initiative at Deloitte in New York.

Financial institutions outside the United States also say thatthe law's costs will be imposed overwhelmingly on them, giving acompetitive advantage to United States rivals.The European Banking Association estimates that its members wouldhave to pay at least $10 to vet each existing account plus overhauldata systems and procedures.

In Japan, where savers often maintain several small accounts,only a tiny minority of the 800 million total accounts are held byAmericans. The Japanese Bankers Association has said that manualverification of each account would be "extremely burdensome."The Treasury and I.R.S. say that they are addressing the concernsof Japanese and other institutions and that electronic screening,not manual checks, will be acceptable for most types of accounts.

The I.R.S., under pressure from angry and confused financialofficials abroad, has extended the deadline for registration untilJune 30, 2013, and is struggling to provide more detailed guidanceby the end of this year.

But beginning in 2012, many American expatriates - already the onlydeveloped-nation citizens subject to double taxation from theirhome government - must furnish the I.R.S. with detailed personalinformation on their overseas assets.

American Citizens Abroad, an advocacy group, estimates the newform will add three hours to tax preparation. Considering thatthe law provides harsh penalties for even unintentional errors,the organization says it is "simply not realistic for a vast swathof the normally law-abiding filer community unable to afford theexpensive services of a professional tax adviser."

Even with the new requirement, American expatriates must continuereporting their foreign financial assets to the Treasury Department,meaning they will be reporting twice, to different arms of thegovernment, according to different standards. "The Fatca legislationtreats all Americans with overseas bank accounts as criminals, eventhough most of them are honest, hard-working individuals who happento be living and working or retired abroad," said Jacqueline Bugnion,a director of American Citizens Abroad. United States officials saythat in the final version of the law, to be released next summer, thepursuit of information will not be quite as expansive as some fear.

"Searches of the predominant number of pre-existing accounts willbe electronic," Manal S. Corwin, deputy assistant secretary ofthe Treasury for international tax affairs, said during a recentinterview.

More extensive searches will be conducted mainly in the case ofprivate banks, or individuals holding assets exceeding $500,000,she said, though the details are still being worked out. Ms. Corwinsaid the United States would not be asking any institution "toaffirmatively ask every one of their account holders the nationalityquestion."

In Canada, where hundreds of thousands of United States passportholders reside, the outcry has been great. Andrea Taylor, directorof the Investment Industry Association of Canada, said compliancecosts could prove devastating for smaller investment firms alreadyfacing tough times. "This will kind of be the last nail in thecoffin for a lot of them," she said.

Mario Frankovich, chief executive of Burgeonvest Bick Securities,said his Toronto firm currently required no data from new clientsthat would show United States links, so any electronic search"would be showing zero U.S. passports." He said his sense was thatFatca required companies "to prove your innocence."

Enforcement of the law will be tricky, as many countries, includingthe 27 members of the European Union, forbid banks or companies totransfer such information directly to a foreign government.

Emer Traynor, a spokeswoman for Algirdas Semeta, the EuropeanUnion tax commissioner, said talks were under way with the UnitedStates to permit European companies to transfer data to theirnational authorities, which would then pass that information on toWashington. A United States official confirmed this.

There are also questions about whether the I.R.S. will be ready formillions of complicated new filings each year, with critics chargingthat Congress failed to provide the agency with the capacity tohandle the coming avalanche of data. An I.R.S. spokesman, DeanPatterson, said that the agency was "allocating the requisiteresources and personnel to implement Fatca" and that "we arecommitted to laying out a constructive framework for implementation."

Then there is a question of reciprocity: Would the United Statesaccept the same demands for information from the tax authoritiesin other countries - say Russia or China?

Some analysts nonetheless see hope that, once the initial acrimonyand confusion clear away, Fatca could lead to more cooperativeinformation sharing.

Leila Torres, a 35-year-old waitress who lives in Hawthorne, N.J.,concluded her Chapter 7 bankruptcy case in 2009. She was stunnedwhen she got a letter notifying her that Capital One was suing herfor $4,266 in credit-card debt.

"I was trying to move on, and this whole thing has sucked me backinto a nightmare," she says.

Capital One dropped the suit after Ms. Torres accused the companyin a separate lawsuit filed in September of flouting bankruptcylaw. Capital One asked a bankruptcy judge to throw out her suit,but he refused.

It wasn't the first time the company went after its customers fordebts that had been snuffed out in bankruptcy, even though thepractice is illegal. A court-appointed auditor concluded earlierthis year that Capital One pursued 15,500 "erroneous claims"seeking money previously erased by a bankruptcy-court judge.

More than 800 of those borrowers have filed lawsuits or other legalactions against Capital One, the auditor said in a Dec. 6 courtfiling. Without admitting or denying wrongdoing, Capital One agreedto reimburse about 130 borrowers, lawyers and bankruptcy trusteesfor legal costs incurred trying to fend off Capital One.

A spokeswoman for the McLean, Va., company said: "It is our policyand practice not to collect on discharged debt."

In a court filing earlier this year, Capital One disputed theauditor's finding of 15,500 erroneous claims but didn't disclosewhat the company thought the correct tally should be.

Debt collection is a major component of Capital One's business.

The auditor is scrutinizing Capital One as part of a 2010 settlementbetween the company and a U.S. bankruptcy trustee in Massachusetts.

Separately, David W. Houston III, chief judge of the U.S. BankruptcyCourt in Aberdeen, Miss., said he plans to demand that Capital Oneshow up in his courtroom to explain its debt-collection practices.

In October, the judge rejected the company's request to throw outa lawsuit that alleged Capital One tried to collect $43,396.59that was legally erased in an earlier bankruptcy case filed by thesame person.

"I want some proof from the company that this was a legitimate errorand not a conscious, malevolent effort to go out and collect a debtthat's been discharged," Judge Houston said in an interview.

Capital One said in a court filing that it didn't know about theprevious bankruptcy.

Once the company found out, it abandoned its claim, saying it madea mistake that was "neither willful nor intentional," according tothe filing.

Capital One is the 10th-largest U.S. bank by assets, best known forthe credit cards pitched in its "What's in your wallet?" ads. Thecompany's banking unit has grown to nearly 1,000 branches, andfederal regulators are reviewing the proposed $9 billion acquisitionby Capital One of ING Groep NV's U.S. online-banking business.

Debt collection is a major component of Capital One's business thatgets little attention from analysts and investors. As of Sept. 30,Capital One had $2.7 billion in net income so far this year onrevenue of $12.22 billion, but it also was forced to write off $2.9billion in uncollectible loans.

As a result, like most lenders, Capital One invests significantresources into trying to collect from customers who are behindon their bills. But unlike most others who outsource their debtcollection, Capital One largely relies on employees.

If a customer files for bankruptcy, the company often lines upwith other creditors to collect whatever assets are left. Thisis entirely legal, up to the point that a customer's debts areofficially erased by a bankruptcy judge.

Capital One is accused of filing claims to get debts that werepreviously discharged in some cases.

There is a lucrative niche in collecting even small amounts fromdebtors in the window between when a bankruptcy proceeding is filedand when it is completed.

Buyers are hungry for bankruptcy debt because they often wind updoubling their initial investment, according to Mr. McVity.

William Weinstein, chief executive of Weinstein & Riley, adebt-collection company in Seattle, said he proceeds carefully whenbuying bankruptcy-related debt because some firms "aggressivelypursue payments in violation of the law."

For example, collectors sometimes report erased debts to creditbureaus, a pressure tactic that is in violation of the law if thedebt has been discharged.

About 1.4 million Americans filed for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13bankruptcy-court protection in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, down8% from a year earlier but nearly double the number of bankruptcyfilings in 2007.

In 2008, a U.S. bankruptcy trustee in Massachusetts accused CapitalOne of illegally trying 5,600 times to collect debts already wipedout by a bankruptcy judge.

The trustee, who declined to comment, said the wrongful claims werethe result of Capital One's failure to keep track of bankruptcyfilings by its customers. The trustee began investigating thecompany when it allegedly sought $5,542.50 from a couple 14 yearsafter the debt was erased.

Capital One denied any wrongdoing but agreed to turn over internalrecords detailing 2.2 million filings of bankruptcy-court claimsbetween 2005 and 2010.

The company also agreed to supervision from a court-appointedmonitor that will last until the auditor has completed a review ofthe bankruptcy-collection records.

Wiretap Suits OKd Against US, Not Telecoms - The San Francisco Chronicle

The nation's telecommunications companies can't be sued forcooperating with the Bush administration's secret surveillanceprogram, but their customers can sue the government for allegedlyintercepting their phone calls and e-mails without a warrant,a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

There is a "secret room" in AT&T's Folsom Street office in SanFrancisco that is believed to be one of several internet wiretappingfacilities at AT&T offices around the country feeding data tothe NSA.

In a pair of decisions, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals inSan Francisco upheld a 2008 law immunizing AT&T and other companiesfor their roles in wiretapping calls to alleged foreign terrorists,but revived a suit that accused the government of illegallyintercepting millions of messages from U.S. residents.

That lawsuit was partly based on testimony in 2003 by former AT&Ttechnician Mark Klein about equipment in the company's office onFolsom Street in San Francisco that allowed Internet traffic to berouted to the government. 'Dragnet' surveillance

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy-rights organizationrepresenting AT&T customers, claimed the company had similarinstallations in other cities and used them for "dragnet"surveillance of everyday e-mails and phone calls, which the NationalSecurity Agency purportedly screened electronically for connectionsto terrorism.

"We look forward to proving the program is an unconstitutional andillegal violation of the rights of millions of ordinary Americans,"said Cindy Cohn, the foundation's legal director.

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd declined comment. PresidentGeorge W. Bush acknowledged in 2005 that his administration hadeavesdropped on calls to suspected foreign terrorists without thewarrants required by federal law, but his Justice Department deniedthe existence of a dragnet surveillance program. Dozens of suitschallenging the surveillance were transferred to San Francisco. Inone case, then-Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled inMarch 2010 that federal agents had illegally wiretapped an Islamicorganization, which was accidentally sent a copy of the surveillancedocuments. The Obama administration, which inherited the case,is appealing the ruling.

Obama backed law Walker also allowed suits against telecommunicationscompanies that allegedly took part in illegal surveillance,but Bush then signed a law, supported by then-Sen. Barack Obama,that immunized companies cooperating in presidentially approvedantiterrorism intelligence-gathering.

The appeals court upheld that law in a 3-0 ruling, rejectingarguments that Congress had interfered improperly in ongoinglawsuits and had delegated excessive power to Bush's attorneygeneral, who certified the companies' eligibility for immunity ina confidential filing.

The Obama administration defended the law and also sought to dismissthe customers' suit against the government, arguing that it wasbased on speculation about wiretapping and involved political andnational-security issues that were exempt from judicial review. Theappeals court disagreed.

After collecting $4.4 billion in two so-called voluntary disclosureprograms for offshore accounts, the IRS announced plans to revivethe program.

The Internal Revenue Service is giving U.S. citizens who haveshielded assets offshore a third opportunity to come clean, pay apenalty and avoid criminal prosecution.

After collecting $4.4 billion in two so-called voluntary disclosureprograms for offshore accounts, the IRS announced plans yesterday torevive the program. Participants will pay as much as 27.5 percentof their most valuable offshore assets or their biggest overseasbank account. They also must disclose the banks and advisers thathelped them escape U.S. tax laws.

The program's revival is part of the U.S. government's efforts totrack down and prevent tax evasion around the world. Since 2009,the U.S. has prosecuted clients of UBS AG (UBSN) and HSBC HoldingsPlc. (HSBA) Switzerland's Weglin & Co. said on Jan. 4 that three ofits bankers have been charged with conspiring to help U.S. clientshide more than $1.2 billion from the IRS.

"We're gaining momentum in our international efforts and the wordis spreading across the globe," IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman toldreporters on a conference call yesterday.

He wouldn't comment on legal cases the U.S. is pursuing.

Shulman said 33,000 disclosures were made in the two previousversions of the voluntary program. An effort that began in 2009resulted in $3.4 billion in collections. The second program in 2011yielded about $1 billion for the IRS, and Shulman said he expectsthat amount to rise.

'Enormous' Problem

Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who heads the PermanentSubcommittee on Investigations, said the statistics demonstrate"how enormous the offshore tax evasion problem is."

"Taxpayers are turning themselves in because federal prosecutorshave finally begun to go after the individual tax- haven banks,bankers and other financial professionals helping them chat ontheir taxes," Levin said in a press release.

Taxpayers with undeclared assets might be more willing to workwith the IRS amid fewer options to protect themselves offshore,said Kevin Packman, the chairman of the offshore tax complianceteam at Holland & Knight LLP in Miami.

Meanwhile, some banks aren't taking U.S. clients because theydon't want to comply with a rule being developed that would requireoverseas financial institutions to report the identities of suchcustomers to the IRS.

"You have a whole host of banks throughout Europe who are kickingout taxpayers," Packman said in a telephone interview. "You havenowhere to hide. Even people in compliance outside the U.S. arehaving trouble keeping their accounts open."Complex Rule

Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) of Canada, Allianz SE (ALV) of Germanyand Aegon NV (AGN) of the Netherlands have criticized the reportingrule as too complex.

The IRS doesn't have an estimate of assets U.S. citizens holdoffshore, Shulman said. Still, the $4.4 billion in penaltiesamassed under the programs so far is unlikely to plug the gapbetween the amount of taxes owed by U.S. citizens and the amountthe IRS collects. The agency said Jan. 6 that U.S. companiesand individuals didn't pay $385 billion in taxes owed in 2006,an increase from $290 billion five years earlier.

Unlike in the previous programs, the IRS this time isn't specifyinga deadline for disclosing assets. It said the program will remainopen "for an indefinite period."

17 Reasons I Refuse to File an Income Tax Return - Will Kesler, Activist Post

1. Accepting a commission in the USAF I solemnly swore an oath to Godthat I will support and defend the Constitution of the United Statesagainst all enemies, foreign and domestic and that I will bear truefaith and allegiance to the same. Therefore, I have publicly refusedto file an income tax return for the past 12 years. If broughtbefore a jury of my peers, the following will be my defense againstcharges stemming from my decision not to file an income tax return.

2. Mens Rea, or guilty mind," is a central distinguishing feature ofcriminal law. Criminal liability generally requires not only causinga prohibited harm or evil . . . but also a particular state of mind,an act done with a bad purpose or evil intent. Therefore, it isessential to explain my intent in allegedly violating Section 7203of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). * In fact, during the 12 yearsI have not filed a return I published over a dozen columns in theAspen Daily News, self-published a book, marched in parades and spentdays on the Pitkin County Court House steps. From start to present Ihave knowingly placed myself at considerable risk, as I documentedmy stance (brevity limits this discourse) and expressed my intentto 1. Expose tyranny 2. Force our government to obey the law and3. Scrap our hopelessly flawed and corrupt system of taxation. *In retaliation the IRS assessed me for 11 million dollars theyclaim I owe for the year 2002 (I am a man of modest means). Then,without complying with due process as required by Section 6320 ofthe IRC the IRS gained control over everything I owned and stolemy liquid assets. * This goes far beyond income tax into the heartof a government that is profoundly out of control. 3. The law Iallegedly violated is Section 7203 of the IRC Willful failure tofile." To convict me of this crime the government must prove twoelements, each one beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that I ama person required by law to file a return and second, that thefailure to file was willful.4. In U.S. v. Bishop [412 US 346] the Supreme Court ruled that,The requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met ifa taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision ofthis court." I am, in fact, relying in good faith on numerousSupreme Court decisions. 5. If the IRS required a citizen tofile they would be in direct conflict with numerous SupremeCourt decisions. For instance, in Brushaber, the landmark caseregarding the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that a new,direct taxing power, not limited by apportionment or uniformity,would Cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another,"and If acceded to would create radical and destructive changes toour Constitutional system." The Supreme Court thus ruled Taxationon income was in its nature an excise (indirect) tax entitled tobe enforced as such." An indirect tax must be uniform.* Also, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. [240 US 103 (1916)] we findThe 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simplyprohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxationfrom being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which itinherently belonged." * The Harvard Law Review confirms that incometax is indirect in vol. 29, pages 536-8 which states, in essence,that In Brushaber, Chief Justice White, construed the 16th Amendmentas a declaration that an income tax is indirect" rather than makingan exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned.6. The Supreme Court has ruled that income" denotes the followingThe word must be given the same meaning in all the income tax actsof Congress that was given it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act andwhat that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisionsof this court." [Merchants Loan v. Smietanka 255 US 509 (1921)].* The Corporation Excise Tax Act defined income" as a corporateprofit. * Also Whatever difficulty there may be about a precisescientific definition of 'income,' it imports something entirelydistinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxationor as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain orincrease arising from corporate activities." [Doyle v. MitchellBrothers, 247 US 179 (1918)]7. Whereas I have no income" as defined by the Supreme Court Ineed not file an income" tax return. Furthermore, ignoring theconstitutional definition of income" creates blatant discrepancy. Acorporation computes income" tax on profit, while an individualcomputes income" tax on wages earned. There is a vast and maliciousdifference. 8. In Boyd v. US [116 US 616] the Supreme Court ruledA taxpayer may refuse to exhibit his/her books and records forexamination on the ground that compelling him/her to do so mightviolate his/her right under the Fifth Amendment and constitute anillegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment."* Also from Boyd It does not require actual entry upon premisesand search for and seizure of papers to constitute an unreasonablesearch and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment;a compulsory production of a private party's books and papers,to be used against himself or his property in a criminal or penalproceeding, or for a forfeiture, is within the spirit or meaningof the Amendment." 9. Given that Boyd v. US states that a citizencan legally withhold books and records, the IRS would be in directconflict with the Supreme Court if it required a citizen to file areturn, which is simply a summary of books and records. Therefore,and for many other reasons, the IRS does not require a citizento file. 10. The title of Section 6012 of the IRC states Personsrequired to make returns of income." However, according to theIRC [section 7806(b)] a code section's title is not part of thelaw. In the body of code section 6012, where the law resides, wefind Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shallbe made by the followingâ¦* The Supreme Court [Cairo v. Hect, 95 US 170] held As against thegovernment the word 'shall' when used in statutes is to be construedas 'may' unless a contrary intention is manifest." * Also The word'shall' in a statute may be construed to mean 'may' particularlyin order to avoid a constitutional doubt." [Fort Howard Paperv. Fox River Sanitary Dist., 26 NW 2nd 661]. The IRS could have,but does not, use the word required" in the body of code section6012. 11. There is also no law that requires withholding or payingestimated income tax. The IRC defines a withholding agent" at IRC7701(a) (16) as only required to deduct and withhold income taxfrom nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. Therefore, nolaw requires income tax be withheld from citizens living in America.* Title 26, Subtitle f, Chapter 68, Subchapter A, Part 1, Section6654 of the IRC states Failure by individual to pay estimatedincome tax (e) Exceptionsâ¦ (2c) If the individual was a citizen orresident of the United States throughout the preceding year. Everyyear millions of citizens pay estimated income tax while theirexemption is hidden deep in the IRC.12. In fact, the IRS has insisted for decades that filing a returnand paying income tax is based on voluntary compliance." In 1971 the1040 booklet declared Each year American taxpayers voluntarily filetheir tax returns and make a special effort to pay the taxes theyowe." ~In 1980 the 1040 booklet stated The primary task of the IRSis to collect taxes under a voluntary compliance system." Webster'sDictionary defines voluntary" as something done of one's own freewill, without legal obligation." * The Federal Register [vol.39March 29, 1974] states The mission of the IRS is to encourageand achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliancewith the tax laws and regulations. * The Supreme Court ruled inFlora v. U.S. that Our system of taxation is based upon voluntaryassessment and payment, not upon distraint."13. In 1953 Dwight E. Avis, then Director of the Alcohol andTobacco Division of the IRS, testified under oath, before Congress,that Your income tax is 100% voluntary tax and your liquor tax is100% enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as night andday." [Hearings: Internal Revenue Investigation, 1953.]

* Note, I sincerely believe Dwight E. Avis. 14. The Supreme Courtruled in Cheek v. U.S. [498 US 192 (1991)] that in relation to incometax A good faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief thatone is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or notthe claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable."

* The 1998 U.S. Attorney's Bulletin 19 states In the seminal case ofCheek v. U.S. the Supreme Court held that a taxpayer's 'belief' thathe or she was not required to file a tax return, however incrediblesuch a misunderstanding of and beliefs about the law might be, doesnot have to be objectively reasonable. Rather, the standard is asubjective one." 15. While this discourse proves, beyond a reasonabledoubt, that I am not required to file, the Supreme Court has ruled,thus it is a law of this land, that I need not be legally correct;I need only possess a sincere belief.

In essence, I have discovered a pattern of deception that I cannotignore and keep my oath to God. As I have revealed why, as my actionshave proven, I have a good faith belief that I am not required tofile, thus my failure to file is not willful.

16. While America celebrated the New Year, Obama authorized themilitary to detain American citizens indefinitely, without rightssupposedly guaranteed by our Constitution, by simply labelinganyone a terrorist." I am a decorated Viet Nam Veteran, I have nocriminal record and yet because I have realized the above and am atax protester I have been labeled a domestic terrorist" along with,under the Patriot Act someone who breaks a state or federal lawand endangers the welfare of others." 17. Time is quickly runningout. We either demand our rights proclaimed by our Constitution orfreedom is lost. We can starve the beast and expose tyranny beforeit is too late. Simply honor your responsibility as a citizen andsend the following letter to the IRS.

Dear IRS,Whereas the Internal Revenue Code defines a withholding agent"at IRC 7701(a)(16) which states, The term 'withholding agent'means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under theprovisions of Sections 1441, 1442, 1443 and 1461." The first threesections apply to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations,while 1461 simply makes the agent responsible for monies collected.

Therefore, as I am neither a nonresident alien nor foreigncorporation my employer is not required to withhold income tax frommy paycheck and since I no longer choose to volunteer, I submitthis letter and demand the appropriate form/ instructions, based onthe above definition, i.e. the law, which I can then present to myemployer to legally halt having income tax withheld from my paycheck.

The FBI is warning citizens with smartphones to be wary of postingphotos from your mobile device. You may be sharing more than justa pretty picture. - James Myers

With the ubiquitous presence of smartphones and social mediaplatforms in all of our lives, sharing photos has never beeneasier. Millions of pictures are uploaded to the Web every day andcamera-enabled mobile phones are the perennial top-selling consumerelectronic devices. So it's a safe bet that even more photos willbe cropping up on image-hosting communities and personal websites.

But what exactly is being shared?

According to a release issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI), in some cases, you might unwittingly be letting others knowwhere you live and work and your travel patterns and habits. Thesedetails can be revealed through bits of information embedded inimages taken with smartphones and some digital cameras and thenshared on public websites. The information, called metadata, oftenincludes the times, dates and geographical coordinates (latitudeand longitude) where images are taken.

While the geospatial data can be helpful in myriad web applicationsthat plot image locations, it also opens a door for criminals,including burglars, stalkers, and predators. It's not a stretchto imagine young teens' images of their ventures to the mall orbeach being culled by web predators and meticulously plotted ononline maps.

"It's not something we think is happening. We know it's happening,"said Kevin Gutfleish, head of the Innocent Images IntelligenceUnit in the FBI's Cyber Division. The unit provides analysis andassessments of emerging threats for the operational arm of theInnocent Images National Initiative, which targets child pornographyand sexual predators.

"The way that images are being posted in real time allows otherswho have access to see the metadata and see where the photos weretaken and reveal their location at that time," Gutfleish said.

An intelligence analyst in the FBI Criminal Division's CrimesAgainst Children Unit said these details can reveal a "pattern oflife," particularly when images posted over time are clustered ingeographic locations.

"It doesn't have to be in real time to be dangerous," said theanalyst. "Historical data can tell you a lot about individuals'day-to-day habits and may indicate where they are most likely tobe at a certain time."

Some popular social media sites automatically scrub metadata fromimages before they are published. On the other hand, some leveragethe data to display location information beside the images. Anamateur sleuth could easily pinpoint a location using the availablelatitude and longitude coordinates.

"Even if they don't intentionally say where they are, the photoscould reveal that," Gutfleish said. "And that could present apotential danger."

Gutfleish said he has seen an increase in intelligence reports andcomplaints about the potential misuse of the metadata embedded inphotos. He said the proliferation of online tools that aggregatepersonal information from social networking and image hosting sitesis enough to urge a level of caution.

He suggests mobile phone users at the very least check the"options" or "settings" on their phones (and any applicable mobileapplications) to see if they are sharing location information. Inmany cases, the default setting is to share location information.

"It's just a best-practice if you don't want to give out yourlocation," Gutfleish says. "We simply want to make sure people knowthis is happening."

Disabling the Location Function

Disabling the photo geotagging function on mobile phones varies bymanufacturer, but is generally a straightforward process. On the mostcurrent iPhone model, users can simply find the "Location Services"toggle in there "Settings folder."

It goes without saying that the FBI is the nation's premier federallaw enforcement agency, but increasingly in the digital age, thebureau seems intent on finding ways around some of those laws -and constitutional protections - and then lying about it.

In mid-December Andrew Coward, the vice president of marketingfor Carrier IQ of Mountain View, Calif., told a Senate JudiciaryCommittee panel that the FBI has, on occasion, sought to usemonitoring technology the company secretly installed on some 141million cell phones.

That admission came a day after FBI Director Robert adamantly assuredmembers of the committee's privacy and technology panel that hisagency "never sought nor obtained any information" from the firm.

When pressed, Coward would not say how many times or how often thebureau sought Carrier IQ's technology, but he was certain of thecompany's response to those requests. "There is no relationshipbetween us and the FBI," he said.

Coward's testimony appeared to conflict rather mightily withMueller's, who said in response to a question about it from Sen. AlFranken, D-Minn., that the bureau "neither sought nor obtained anyinformation from Carrier IQ in any one of our investigations."

A spokesman for the FBI, Michael Kortan, sought to trivialize anycontact the FBI may have had by telling The Associated Press theagency "communicates routinely with many technology companies,including Carrier IQ, relative to new and emerging technologiesand capabilities."

The FBI "routinely" communicates with Carrier IQ and other techcompanies, but as Mueller said, the agency just never tried toobtain any information about using said technologies.

We're not sure what's worse - the technology itself or the factthat the FBI is trying to get a hold of it for no apparent goodreason. According to reports, Carrier IQ's software is used by cellphone makers and carriers "to collect some information, such as thetelephone numbers a user dials and the phone numbers from incomingcalls," the Washington Post reported.

The companies assure consumers, however, that the technologydoesn't "collect the content of text messages sent or received, thecontent of e-mails sent or received, the URLs of Web sites visited,information from user address books or any other keystroke data."

Not so fast. This Web site has a wealth of tech-heavy, geek squadstuff on it, but it appears to say, in essence, the software iscapable of - and probably does - collect the very information thecompany says is not being collected.

And there is this. In November, security researcher Trevor Eckhartposted a video online showing how keystrokes and messages from hissmart phone were being logged by Carrier IQ software.

Comedian-turned-U.S. senator Al Franken isn't laughing. "Theseactions may violate federal privacy laws, including the ElectronicCommunications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,"he wrote recently in a letter to the company's president. In perhapsthe understatement of the year, Franken added "This is potentiallya very serious matter."

*** How to Discover Your Own Personal Shangri-la... - International Man

The countries of the developed world are experiencing a new classof refugee - members of the middle- and upper-class. These rungsof the socio-economic ladder are realizing that their countriesof residence are in many ways going rapidly downhill without muchhope of a short- or medium-term reversal. This is particularlytrue for national economies, taxes and regulations, and in termsof deteriorating individual liberty.

As a result, many are seeking permanent expatriation, or a "backdoor" destination, should a sudden move become necessary. In fact,after internationalizing your assets, establishing the back dooris the next most important diversification strategy for most.

As an International Man reader, you may be preparing for orconsidering a second residence outside your home country. Hopefullythis article will provide valuable insight toward that end.

The first big hurdle is determining which destination is the rightfit for you and your family. This task can be time consuming andfrustrating.

Many in the developed West contemplating personalinternationalization, particularly Americans, are saying,"There's nowhere to go - the whole world is falling apart." Yet,this is far from the truth. Although much of the developed worldis in serious decline, there are exceptions. Further, some of theworld's developing countries are on the rise both socially andeconomically. However, some of the greatest opportunities for thosehoping for a better life outside of Europe or America lie in lessdeveloped countries.

The less developed countries are generally perceived by dwellersof the developed West as impoverished nations where ignorance anddisease are the norm. This is certainly true of some countries suchas Somalia, which is the far extreme. However, it is certainly notthe case with other locales that technically fit in this categorysuch as Uruguay, which is almost entirely unaffected by the presentfirst world crisis.

Perhaps your idea of a new home is on a beach in the Caribbean wherethere is minimal violence, and where your wealth is relativelysecure. Or, possibly you would prefer a home where there areold-world values and traditions, where you can frequent cafes andsurround yourself with the arts. Whatever fits your tastes and needs,such a destination is likely to exist. However, finding the rightcombination of ingredients is time consuming and requires someresearch and a bit of travel.

Our first recommendation is that you begin with a list of what isimportant to you. This can include such items as low taxation* andlimited government. However, it may also contain gourmet food andgood hair salons. While the latter may seem frivolous, it may notbe. Many have expatriated to a new jurisdiction, only to discoverthat it's the frivolous things that they miss most. Therefore,create a table that covers all these things for all those who will begoing with you. Below is an example of how you might go about this.

Keep in mind that a few countries including the US tax on worldincome. If, as a US citizen, you earn income abroad, you may qualifyfor the Foreign Earned Income exclusion on up to the first USD$91,500 of income. However, residency restrictions do apply. So,while a Caribbean island may offer tax free living, that does notgenerally apply to US persons.

Possible Exit DestinationsThis table is available in PDF in the Members Area underInternationalization Tools

The table was used by a Scottish acquaintance of mine when he beganhis search for a second residence. In the end, his final choicewas not even a country on this table. He decided on Chiang Mai,Thailand, also now home to the well-known contrarian investmentadvisor Marc Faber.

Using a table similar to the one above and ranking your prioritiesfor each contending country is an extremely valuable exercise. Whilenot entirely scientific and obviously subject to personal biases, byconducting extensive due diligence and applying the results to sucha document, the person or family looking for a second residence willbe less prone to making a commitment that is later regretted. Youcan ensure you cover all bases before making a decision.

Once the list of contenders has been decided, a bit of travel will bein order. While research can reveal information about any potentialdestination, getting a feel for the country and how things actuallywork requires personal experience. By planning a vacation at theplace of interest the priorities in the table can be confirmed andnew ones added. Some time on the ground, taking notes and refiningthe table will assist in determining if a potential choice is agood fit for you and your family.

Once the decision on where in the world to settle is reached, otherchoices will surface over time: do you wish to work, start a businessor retire in the new location?; will you pursue citizenship orlegal residence? As the answers to these questions surface you willneed to set the appropriate process in motion. In many countries,accomplishing some or all of these goals can take a long time,so plan accordingly and expect a few hurdles along the way.

The North American Homeland Security Perimeter: A Threat to Canada'sNational Sovereignty - Dana Gabriel, Global Research

After months of negotiations, the U.S. and Canada have unveilednew trade, regulatory and security initiatives to speed up theflow of goods and people across the border. The joint action plansprovide a framework that goes beyond NAFTA and continues where theSecurity and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) left off. This will takeU.S.-Canada integration to the next level and is the pretext fora North American Homeland Security perimeter.

On December 7, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister StephenHarper announced the Beyond the Border Perimeter Security andEconomic Competitiveness Action Plan. The new deal focuses onaddressing security threats early, facilitating trade, economicgrowth and jobs, integrating cross-border law enforcement, as wellas improving infrastructure and cyber-security. It will act as aroadmap with different parts being phased in over the next severalyears. This includes the creation of various pilot projects. Manyaspects of the agreement will also depend on the availability offunding from both governments. In addition, the two leaders issueda separate Regulatory Cooperation Council Action Plan that sets outinitiatives whereby the U.S. and Canada will seek greater regulatoryalignment in the areas of agriculture and food, transportation,environment, health, along with consumer products.

At a Joint News Conference, President Obama declared that, "Canadais key to achieving my goal of doubling American exports andputting folks back to work. And the two important initiatives thatwe agreed to today will help us do just that." He went on to say,"we're agreeing to a series of concrete steps to bring our economieseven closer and to improve the security of our citizens." Obamaalso added, "we're going to improve our infrastructure, we'regoing to introduce new technologies, we're going to improvecargo security and screening." Prime Minister Harper proclaimedthat, "These agreements create a new, modern order for a newcentury. Together, they represent the most significant steps forwardin Canada-U.S. cooperation since the North American Free TradeAgreement." He explained that, "The first agreement merges U.S. andCanadian security concerns with our mutual interest in keeping ourborder as open as possible to legitimate commerce and travel." Harperdescribed how, "The second joint initiative will reduce regulatorybarriers to trade by streamlining and aligning standards."

Some of the measures found in the Beyond the Border action planinclude conducting joint, integrated threat assessments; improvingcooperative law enforcement capacity and national intelligence-and information-sharing; cooperating on research and best practicesto prevent and counter homegrown violent extremism; working tojointly prepare for and respond to binational disasters and enhancingcross-border critical infrastructure protection and resilience. Otherfacets of the deal will work towards adopting an integrated cargosecurity strategy; implementing entry and exit verification;establishing and verifying the identity of foreign travellersto North America; better aligning Canadian and U.S. programs forlow-risk travellers and installing radio frequency identificationtechnology at key border crossings.

As part of the agreement, both countries will, "implement twoNext-Generation pilot projects to create integrated teams inareas such as intelligence and criminal investigations, and anintelligence-led uniformed presence between ports of entry." Thiswill build on past joint law enforcement initiatives such as theShiprider program and the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams. TheNext-Generation pilot projects are scheduled to be deployed by thesummer of 2012. In September, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holderrevealed plans that would allow law enforcement officers to operateon both sides of the border. He announced that, "the creationof â~NextGen' teams of cross-designated officers would allowus to more effectively identify, assess, and interdict personsand organizations involved in transnational crime." Holder alsocommented that, "In conjunction with the other provisions includedin the Beyond the Border Initiative, such a move would enhance ourcross-border efforts and advance our information-sharing abilities."

In his article, How the U.S. blackmailed Canada, Gar Pardy stressedthat as part of a North American security zone, "Canadian securityinstitutions will be more closely integrated with those of theUnited States." While addressing the Beyond the Border declarationand the subsequent action plan, he highlighted the fact that,"these are not formal treaties or even formal agreements, althoughthere could be greater formality in the future." Pardy also noted,"Nowhere in the documentation resulting from the two meetingsare there suggestions the people of Canada will be providedwith detailed information on which judgments can be made on thewisdom of this consensual agreement negotiated in the backroomsof both capitals." Instead he cautioned that, "the troublesomedetails implicit in the agreement will be hidden behind the wallof national security." Pardy argued that in the process, "Canadasold its national security independence in exchange for hoped-forminor changes to American border restrictions." He concluded that,"It is not an overstatement to suggest the United States blackmailedthe government of Canada into making this deal. It was the Americanway or no way."

The Council of Canadians have also strongly rejected the newborder deal. They have challenged the notion that, "proper privacyprotections can be achieved between Canada and the U.S. withoutsignificantly diluting stronger Canadian laws and norms." Citingprivacy concerns associated with the U.S. Patriot Act, theorganization emphasized that, "the proposed new entry-exitsystem for travellers needs the greatest scrutiny by Canadianparliamentarians, security and privacy experts." The Councilof Canadians also criticized, "the government for hiding behinda sham public consultation and implying that this should clearthe way for implementation of the action plan." In August, theConservative government released two reports which summarized onlinepublic input received concerning regulatory cooperation, as well asperimeter security and economic competitiveness. While improving themovement of trade and travel was the priority for business groups,many individuals expressed concerns over the loss of sovereignty,along with the protection of personal information.

When it comes to regulatory convergence, Maude Barlow, nationalchairperson of the Council of Canadians agreed that, "Standardizationcan be a good thing when standards are high," She conceded, "Theproblem is standards aren't higher in the U.S. in many cases." Barlowalso acknowledged that, "Already Health Canada and other agenciesconsider harmonization with U.S. standards to be a more importantconsideration than the real safety of our food. This perimeterdeal cements that skewed priority list." There are fears that itcould erode any independent Canadian regulatory capacity and weakenexisting regulations. Part of the SPP agenda called for improvingregulatory cooperation which resulted in Canada raising pesticidelimits on fruits and vegetables. Regulatory integration threatensCanadian sovereignty and democracy. Further harmonization withthe U.S. could result in Canada losing control over its ability toregulate food safety. This could also lead to a race to the bottomwith respect to other regulatory standards.

By all accounts, big business is the winner in the new trade andsecurity perimeter deal. Maude Barlow explained that, "this processhas been set up to accommodate one sector of our community and thatis big business." In advance of the action plans being unveiled tothe public, business stakeholders were briefed on the specifics. TheCanadian Council of Chief Executives, an organization that lobbiesthe government on behalf of Canada's largest corporations hasgiven it their stamp of approval. The U.S. and Canadian Chambers ofCommerce also applauded the new vision for border and regulatorycooperation. When it comes to negotiations on the border securityagreement, Barlow confirmed that, "the big business community wasthe only sector at the table with government and guided the processfrom the beginning." This was also the case with the now defunctSPP. Big business was a driving force behind the initiative whichled to the creation of the North American Competitiveness Councilto ensure that corporate interests were being addressed.

In her article, Maude Barlow also warned that when it comes to theperimeter deal, "Canada is essentially giving up policy control inthe key areas of privacy, security, immigration and surveillance inorder to entice the U.S. to loosen controls at the border." Shestated, "it is likely to lead to a wholesale replacement ofCanadian privacy and security standards with American ones, set byHomeland Security." When it comes to information being collectedand stored, Barlow questioned whether it will be, "used as a formof social control, to identify not terrorists, but activists anddissenters of government policy." She insisted that, "We mustcall on our government to create a full public and Parliamentarydebate before this deal becomes operational." From the beginning,the whole process has lacked transparency with no congressionalor parliamentary oversight. This has drawn comparisons to the SPPwhich was shrouded in secrecy and fueled by fears over the lossof sovereignty that finally led to its downfall. We can only hopethat this latest endeavour will meet the same fate. With the 2012U.S. election cycle about to get into full swing, the new bilateraldeal could get lost in the shuffle.

While the perimeter agreement is being sold as vital to thesafety and prosperity of Canadians and Americans alike, there islittle doubt that it will mean a tradeoff between sovereignty andsecurity. Any deal which gives the Department of Homeland Securitymore personal information poses a serious risk to privacy rights. Asboth countries move forward, perimeter security will be furtherdefined and dominated by American interests. This could forceCanada to comply with any new U.S. security measures, regardlessof the dangers they may pose to civil liberties.

A North American Homeland Security perimeter goes well beyondkeeping people safe from any perceived threats. It is a means tosecure trade, resources, as well as corporate interests and is apretext for control over the continent.

Panama has two immigration visas encouraging green investmentscalled the reforestation visas. The first one provides a six yeartemporary residency for investing at least sixty thousand dollars($60,000 USD) towards purchasing a minimum of three (3) hectares ofa government certified reforestation project. The second and mostpopular visa calls for an investment of at least eighty thousanddollars ($80,000 USD) towards purchasing at least five (5) hectaresof a government certified reforestation project providing permanentresidency leading to citizenship. This is the smallest investmentvisa providing permanent residency available.

An individual or a Panama corporation can purchase the requiredhectares from a government certified reforestation project. Anapplicant's spouse and dependent children can be included with thevisa for an additional two thousand dollars ($2,000 USD) investmentper dependent.

Citizenship can be achieved after an initial two years as temporaryresidents plus another five years as permanent residents.

Reforestation is the process in which the reestablishment ofa plantation occurs, in this case, by planting an area where aprevious plantation was removed or was not existent previously,teaks and mahoganies are the most popular in Panama. It takes twenty(20) years for a tree to mature for harvesting with a thinning downprocess every six (6), twelve (12) and sixteen (16) years whichproduces commercial wood for sale. After harvesting the land isreplanted with new trees and resold to existing or new investors.

Besides obtaining legal residency and citizenship a reforestationinvestment is profitable.

At just an average of two percent (2%) yearly increase in teakmarket prices, the eighty thousand dollars ($80,000 USD) initialinvestment can bring a return of three hundred seventy thousandfive hundred eighty six dollars ($370,586 USD) in twenty (20) years.

That's a return of the four hundred sixty percent (460%) in twenty(20) years or an annual average of twenty-three percent (23%). That'snot bad when compared to the current stock market. According toStandard & Poor's the average S&P 500 Index only averaged sevenpoint thirty-three percent (7.33%) annually from 1990 to 2008.

Investing in hardwood is not as well known as other commoditieslike gold, beef, or produce. Teak is the most popular of hardwoodsbecause it is resilient to weather, resistant to decay, and repelsinsects. This is why teak is most often used for indoor and outdoorfurniture and ship decking. Other characteristics of teak are itselasticity and solid fiber which is perfect for woodworking products.

Teak hardwoods are some of the best performing investments becauseteak has historically been in high demand with diminishing worldsupplies. According to the United Nations, nearly twenty eightmillion (28,000,000) acres of tropical forests are destroyed eachyear. This amount of territory is roughly equivalent to the statesof Ohio or Virginia. Tropical forests have been virtually eliminatedin India, Malaysia and the Philippines and now logging has increasedin South America as well.

Teak is not a natural hardwood for Panama. It was imported to Panamaafter the 1900Â´s. Teak has proven to grow particularly wellin PanamaÂ´s climate. Many investors buy Panama's teak hardwoodreforestation investments as a plan for their children's collegefunds! In twenty (20) years an eighty thousand dollars ($80,000)investment can pay for two children's tuition, room and board atHarvard University for four (4) years.

According to the International Teak Market Report of 2006:

"Over the last 30 years, teak log prices have increased at an averagerate of 8.3% per annum compounded. The basis for the sharp increaseis due to rapidly declining supply and rising demand. Teak log pricesin the past 12 months have risen 15% in the premium log categories."

Investors don't have to become farmers to participate in Panama'sreforestation projects. Government certified reforestation companiessell the required hectares and provide full maintenance over the lifeof the investment. This includes thinning, harvesting, and sellingthe teak at market value. Investing in Panama's teak reforestationprojects makes sense for long term profit, obtaining residency andcitizenship, along with helping to save the planet's diminishingteak forests. This is a truly "Green" investment with benefits!

Vying for Detention: Two liberal Democratic Senators Give Us aPolice State for Christmas - Dan DeWalt

Two key liberal Senators in Washington did what it took to passa law making the US a battle zone in the "war" on terror, andmaking all US citizens potential terrorists with no rights underthe Constitution. Happy Holidays citizens!

The Police State came a big step closer in the new militaryauthorization bill by ThisCantBeHappening

Predator Odrona is about to sign a military authorization bill[Carl Levin's S-1867] that puts every one of us at risk of beingdetained by our own military. If the government decides that youare a terrorist threat, the military will be able to kidnap you anddeny you the right to a trial or even the right to know why you'rebeing held.

The arrogant and short-sighted leaders who "govern" us have grantedthe government the right to detain you anywhere in the world,including inside the U.S., and there is no limit to the amount oftime that they can hold you once they've got you.We shouldn't worry though, they claim, because this new law is onlymeant for the terrorists among us.

So just who represents a terrorist threat? Well, protesters forstarts, according to a Pentagon training test, which defines protestsas acts of low-level terrorism. Quaker peace meetings in Vermont andacross the country have been registered as "suspicious incidents"by the Defense Department's secretive TALON snooping system. Onceyour name has been entered into one of these lovely surveillancesystems, you can rest assured that it will never disappear.

The muslims in America certainly know that they are perceivedas potential or likely terrorists by an alarming number of lawenforcement agencies across the land. Reports have documented blatantanti-muslim profiling by "experts" presenting at law enforcementterrorism training events.

And let's not forget the right side of the spectrum. Radicalback-to-the-landers who wave guns and evade taxes have long been agovernment favorite for keeping their kill squads sharp. Just askRandy Weaver. Washington state recently requested an was grantedthe use of a military surveillance drone to lead SWAT teams, a bombsquad, the highway patrol and four counties' worth deputy sheriffsto arrest three unarmed brothers over a six-cow dispute. It wasn'tthe cows that brought on the military-style show of force. It wasthe brothers' family affiliation with the Sovereign Citizen movement,which the FBI classifies as an extremest organization and a domesticterrorism threat.

Obama Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitanofelt compelled to warn law enforcement agencies about "right-wingextremist activity" shortly after her boss's election. A few monthsearlier, DHS had released a report warning about cyber attacksfrom left-wing extremists. If the FBI equates extremest groups withdomestic terrorism, should we be surprised that the DHS does as well?

We're not on the edge of a slippery slope here. We're sliding downa precipice faster than you can say "Facebook killed privacy andI don't care". We're all becoming viewed as potential terroristsuspects.

Is this because we are all potential terrorists? No, it's becausethose in power understand that they have lost their legitimacy andrecognize that the only way that they will be able to hold onto powerit is through intimidation and fear. The 1% have never been able toearn power through just governance. The 99% always rebel eventuallywhen the injustices and inequalities grow too great for their societyto bear. And even though the elite always lose in the long run,they first resort to ratcheting up their police and military powerand start treating their citizens like potential enemies.

So who is one of the surprise enablers of the new improved policestate? That would be Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It used to bethat when a powerful senior Senator recognized a bill that poseda threat to the Republic, he would filibuster it, or use the bullypulpit and parliamentary maneuvering to prevent its passage. Todaythe most we can hope for from him is a failed attempt or two atmeaningfully amending the bill, followed by the passage of a uselessamendment, followed by a yes vote with a few mumbled phrases aboutbeing the best we could do or some such truck.

Well they can detain and disappear a goodly number of us, butthey can't take us all. We're the ones they make money off of,after all. So why don't we all embrace our potential as terroriststogether? It doesn't take much to qualify as we've seen. Let's alldeclare our intentions and see if the Pentagon brass can convinceour troops to come home only to take up hunting us instead of Iraqi"bad guys". Most of our soldiers have labored under the beliefthat they were fighting abroad to defend our free speech rightsat home. American troops take an oath to defend the Constitution,not a government or an ideology. They are duty bound to disobey anyorders that are un-Constitutional, and that would include any thatinvolved detention without charges.

So what sort of declaration shall we make? A simple promise to alwaysexercise our first amendment rights in the face of unconstitutionalactions by the government is a good start. How about a pledge tosupport and encourage all forms of non-violent, peaceful citizenactions that challenge the corrupt status-quo that is destroying ournation and its economy? How about a pledge to support and participatein saving unjustly re-possessed homes from being taken by the banksthat (may) hold the mortgage?

How about openly supporting and participating in non-violent civildis-obedience actions to shut down a leaking nuclear power plantthat won't obey the law of the state where it resides? Or takingnon-violent direct action to impede the immoral weapons manufacturingthat delivers to dictators across the globe to use on their citizens?

It's funny, though: all of these actions are protected by ourConstitution. While some may be illegal and could earn a trialand possible penalty, they all represent the very heart of whatis supposed to be so great about being an American -- the right tofree expression and right to assemble to address grievances. Noneof these actions even remotely deserve to be seen as terrorism,low-level or not.

Congress is set to give the green light on funding for a massiveexpansion of TSA checkpoints, with the federal agency alreadyresponsible for over 9,000 such checkpoints in the last year amidstincreased fears America is turning into a police state followingthe passage of the 'indefinite detention' bill.

The increase in funding has nothing to do with the TSA's rolein airports - this is about creating 12 more VIPR teams to addthe federal agency's 25 units that are already scattered acrossthe country and responsible for manning checkpoints on highways,in bus and train terminals, at sports events and even high schoolprom nights.

"The TSA's 25 "viper" teams - for Visible Intermodal Prevention andResponse - have run more than 9,300 unannounced checkpoints andother search operations in the last year. Department of HomelandSecurity officials have asked Congress for funding to add 12 moreteams next year," reports the L.A. Times.

The demand for $24 million in extra funding is in addition to the$110 million spent in fiscal year 2011. The figures are completelyindependent from the federal agency's role inside the nation'sairports, which costs taxpayers $5 billion a year.

The extra money is being demanded despite the fact that there is"no proof that the roving viper teams have foiled any terroristplots or thwarted any major threat to public safety," according tothe L.A. Times report, which also highlights how the TSA's snifferdogs are used to single out people for questioning if the dog smellsthe scent of the owner's pets on their clothing.

The appearance of thousands more checkpoints on America's highwaysand at key transport hubs will only heighten concerns that thecountry is headed towards a Soviet-style police state.

Such fears were again expressed last week following the passageof the National Authorization Defense Act, a provision of whichempowers the government to arrest Americans and hold them in adetention camp with no legal recourse.

With the federal government now seeking contractors to providestaff and supplies for "emergency camps" located around the country,the possibility of innocent Americans being swept up in a dragnetfollowing a declaration of a national emergency has never been moreof a threat.

The TSA is being used as a literal occupying army to ensure Americanswho travel anywhere are constantly under the scrutiny of Big Brother.

Back in October we reported on how Tennessee's Homeland SecurityCommissioner announced that a raft of new "security checkpoints"would be in place over the Halloween period to "keep roadways safefor trick-or-treaters".

Earlier that same month it was announced that Transportation SecurityAdministration officials would be manning highway checkpoints inTennessee targeting truck drivers.

After public outrage, the TSA attempted to neutralize the controversyby claiming that the inspections were carried out by State Troopers(the TSA agents were there to try to recruit truck drivers intobecoming snitches for the 'See Something, Say Something' campaign),and that the checkpoints were merely temporary.

Pupils are being arrested for throwing paper planes and failing topick up crumbs from the canteen floor. Why is the state criminalisingnormal childhood behaviour? - guardian.co.uk

The charge on the police docket was "disrupting class". But that'snot how 12-year-old Sarah Bustamantes saw her arrest for sprayingtwo bursts of perfume on her neck in class because other childrenwere bullying her with taunts of "you smell".

"I'm weird. Other kids don't like me," said Sarah, who has beendiagnosed with attention-deficit and bipolar disorders and who isconscious of being overweight. "They were saying a lot of rude thingsto me. Just picking on me. So I sprayed myself with perfume. Thenthey said: 'Put that away, that's the most terrible smell I've eversmelled.' Then the teacher called the police."

The policeman didn't have far to come. He patrols the corridorsof Sarah's school, Fulmore Middle in Austin, Texas. Like hundredsof schools in the state, and across large parts of the rest ofthe US, Fulmore Middle has its own police force with officers inuniform who carry guns to keep order in the canteens, playgroundsand lessons. Sarah was taken from class, charged with a criminalmisdemeanour and ordered to appear in court.

Each day, hundreds of schoolchildren appear before courts in Texascharged with offences such as swearing, misbehaving on the schoolbus or getting in to a punch-up in the playground. Children havebeen arrested for possessing cigarettes, wearing "inappropriate"clothes and being late for school.

In 2010, the police gave close to 300,000 "Class C misdemeanour"tickets to children as young as six in Texas for offences in and outof school, which result in fines, community service and even prisontime. What was once handled with a telling-off by the teacher ora call to parents can now result in arrest and a record that maycost a young person a place in college or a job years later.

"We've taken childhood behaviour and made it criminal," said KadySimpkins, a lawyer who represented Sarah Bustamantes. "They'rekids. Disruption of class? Every time I look at this law I think:good lord, I never would have made it in school in the US. I grew upin Australia and it's just rowdy there. I don't know how these kidsdo it, how they go to school every day without breaking these laws."

The British government is studying the American experience indealing with gangs, unruly young people and juvenile justice in thewake of the riots in England. The UK's justice minister, CrispinBlunt, visited Texas last September to study juvenile courts andprisons, youth gangs and police outreach in schools, among otherthings. But his trip came at a time when Texas is reassessing itsown reaction to fears of feral youth that critics say has created a"school-to-prison pipeline". The Texas supreme court chief justice,Wallace Jefferson, has warned that "charging kids with criminaloffences for low-level behavioural issues" is helping to drive manyof them to a life in jail.

The Texas state legislature last year changed the law to stopthe issuing of tickets to 10- and 11-year-olds over classroombehaviour. (In the state, the age of criminal responsibility is10.) But a broader bill to end the practice entirely - championed bya state senator, John Whitmire, who called the system "ridiculous" -failed to pass and cannot be considered again for another two years.

Even the federal government has waded in, with the US attorneygeneral, Eric Holder, saying of criminal citations being used tomaintain discipline in schools: "That is something that clearlyhas to stop."

As almost every parent of a child drawn in to the legal labyrinthby school policing observes, it wasn't this way when they were young.

The emphasis on law and order in the classroom parallels more thantwo decades of rapid expansion of all areas of policing in Texas inresponse to misplaced fears across the US in the 1980s of a loomingcrime wave stoked by the crack epidemic, alarmist academic studiesand the media.

"It's very much tied in with some of the hyperbole around the risein juvenile crime rate that took place back in the early 90s,"said Deborah Fowler, deputy director of Texas Appleseed, an Austinlegal rights group, and principal author of a 200-page study of theconsequences of policing in Texas schools. "They ushered in tough,punitive policies. It was all part of the tough-on-crime movement."

Part of that included the passing of laws that made the US theonly developed country to lock up children as young as 13 for lifewithout the possibility of parole, often as accomplices to murderscommitted by an adult.

As the hand of law and order grew heavier across Texas, its gripalso tightened on schools. The number of school districts in thestate with police departments has risen more than 20-fold over thepast two decades.

"Zero tolerance started out as a term that was used in combating drugtrafficking and it became a term that is now used widely when you'rereferring to some very punitive school discipline measures. Thosetwo policy worlds became conflated with each other," said Fowler.

In the midst of that drive came the 1999 Columbine high schoolmassacre, in which two students in Colorado shot dead 12 otherpupils and a teacher before killing themselves. Parents clamouredfor someone to protect their children and police in schools seemedto many to be the answer.

But most schools do not face any serious threat of violence andpolice officers patrolling the corridors and canteens are largelyconfronted with little more than boisterous or disrespectfulchildhood behaviour.

"What we see often is a real overreaction to behaviour that otherswould generally think of as just childish misbehaviour rather thanlaw breaking," said Fowler. Tickets are most frequently issued byschool police for "disruption of class", which can mean causingproblems during lessons but is also defined as disruptive behaviourwithin 500ft (150 metres) of school property such as shouting,which is classified as "making an unreasonable noise".

Among the more extreme cases documented by Appleseed is of ateacher who had a pupil arrested after the child responded to aquestion as to where a word could be found in a text by saying:"In your culo (arse)", making the other children laugh. Anotherpupil was arrested for throwing paper aeroplanes.

Students are also regularly fined for "disorderly behaviour", whichincludes playground scraps not serious enough to warrant an assaultcharge or for swearing or an offensive gesture. One teenage studentwas arrested and sent to court in Houston after he and his girlfriendpoured milk on each other after they broke up. Nearly one third oftickets involve drugs or alcohol. Although a relatively high numberof tickets - up to 20% in some school districts - involve chargesover the use of weapons, mostly the weapons used were fists.

The very young are not spared. According to Appleseed, Texas recordsshow more than 1,000 tickets were issued to primary schoolchildrenover the past six years (although these have no legal force at thatage). Appleseed said that "several districts ticketed a six-year-oldat least once in the last five years".

Fines run up to $500. For poorer parents, the cost can becrippling. Some parents and students ignore the financial penalty,but that can have consequences years down the road. Schoolchildrenwith outstanding fines are regularly jailed in an adult prison fornon-payment once they turn 17. Stumping up the fine is not an endto the offending student's problems either. A class-C misdemeanouris a criminal offence.

"Once you pay it, that's a guilty plea and that's on your record,"said Simpkins. "In the US we have these astronomical collegeand university expenses and you go to fill out the applicationto get your federal aid for that and it says have you ever beenarrested. And there you are, no aid."

In Austin, about 3% of the school district's 80,000 pupils weregiven criminal citations in the 2007/8 school year, the last datefor which figures are available. But the chances of a teenagerreceiving a ticket in any given year are much higher than thatbecause citations are generally issued to high-school pupils,not those in kindergarten or primary school.

The result, says the Appleseed report, is that "school-to-prisonpipeline" in which a high proportion of children who receive ticketsand end up in front of a court are arrested time and again becausethey are then marked out as troublemakers or find their futureblighted by a criminal record.

From her perch on the bench in an Austin courtroom, Judge JeanneMeurer has spent close on 30 years dealing with children hauled upfor infractions, some serious, others minor. Some of the difficultiesfaced by teachers can be seen as Meurer decides whether a parade ofchildren should be released to await trial or held in custody. Meurerswitches between motherly and intimidating depending on what shemakes of the child before her.

"Some of them are rough kids," she said. "I've been on the bench30 years and you used to never have a child cuss you out like youdo now. I appreciate the frustrations that adults have in dealingwith children who seem to have no manners or respect. But theseare our future. Shouldn't we find a tool to change that dynamicversus just arresting them in school and coming down with the hardcriminal justice hammer?"

Many of those who appear in front of Meurer have learningproblems. Children with disabilities are particularly vulnerableto the consequences of police in schools.

Simpkins describes the case of a boy with attention deficit disorderwho as a 12-year-old tipped a desk over in class in a rage. He wascharged with threatening behaviour and sent to a juvenile prisonwhere he was required to earn his release by meeting certaineducational and behavioural standards.

"But he can't," she said. "Because of that he is turning 18 withinthe juvenile justice system for something that happened when he was12. It's a real trap. A lot of these kids do have disabilities andthat's how they end up there and can't get out. Instead of dealingwith it within school system like we used to, we have these schoolpolice, they come in and it escalates from there."

Sometimes that escalation involves force. "We had one young man withan IQ well below 70 who was pepper-sprayed in the hallway because hedidn't understand what the police were saying," said Simpkins. "Afterthey pepper-sprayed him he started swinging his arms around in painand he hit one of the police officers - it's on video, his eyes wereshut - and they charged him with assault of a public servant. He was16. He was charged with two counts of assault of a public servantand he is still awaiting trial. He could end up in prison."

Austin's school police department is well armed with officerscarrying guns and pepper spray, and with dog units on call forsniffing out drugs and explosives.

According to the department's records, officers used force inschools more than 400 times in the five years to 2008, includingincidents in which pepper spray was fired to break up a food fightin a canteen and guns were drawn on lippy students.

In recent months the questionable use of force has includedthe tasering of a 16-year-old boy at a high school in Seguin,Texas, after "he refused to cooperate" when asked why he wasn'twearing his school identification tag. He then used "abusivelanguage". The police said that when an officer tried to arrestthe boy, he attempted to bite the policeman. The youth was chargedwith resisting arrest and criminal trespass even though the schoolacknowledges he is a student and was legitimately on the grounds.

Such cases are not limited to Texas. In one notorious instance inCalifornia, a school security officer broke the arm of a girl hewas arresting for failing to clear up crumbs after dropping cakein the school canteen. In another incident, University of Floridacampus police tasered a student for pressing Senator John Kerry withan awkward question at a debate after he had been told to shut up.

Sometimes the force is deadly. Last week, Texas police wereaccused of overreacting in shooting dead a 15-year-old student,Jaime Gonzalez, at a school in Brownsville after he pointed an airgun, which resembled a real pistol, at them outside the principal'soffice. The boy's father, also called Jaime, said the police weretoo quick to shoot to kill when they could have wounded him orused another means to arrest him. "If they would have tased him allthis wouldn't have happened," he told the Brownsville Herald. "Likepeople say there's been stand-offs with people that have hostagesfor hours ... But here, they didn't even give I don't think fiveminutes. No negotiating." The police say Gonzalez defied orders toput the gun down.

Meurer says she is not against police in schools but questionswhether officers should regard patrolling the playground the sameway they go about addressing crime on the streets.

"When you start going overboard and using laws to controlnon-illegal behaviour - I mean if any adult did it it's not goingto be a violation - that's where we start seeing a problem," shesays. "You've gradually seen this morphing from schools taking careof their own environments to the police and security personnel,and all of a sudden it just became more and more that we wererelying on law enforcement to control everyday behaviour."

Chief Brian Allen, head of the school police department for theAldine district and president of the Texas school police chiefs'association, is having none of it.

"There's quite a substantial number of students that break thelaw. In Texas and in the US, if you're issued a ticket, it's notautomatically that you're found guilty. You have an opportunity togo before the judge and plead your case. If you're a teacher and akid that's twice as big as you comes up and hits you right in theface, what are you going to do? Are you going to use your skillsthat they taught you or are you going to call a police officer?"

But Allen concedes that the vast majority of incidents in whichthe police become involved are for offences that regarded as littlemore than misbehaviour elsewhere.

"Just like anything else, sometimes mistakes are made." hesaid. "Each circumstance is different and there's no setguideline. There's also something called officer discretion. Ifyou take five auto mechanics and ask them to diagnose the problemof a vehicle, you'll come up with five different solutions. If youask five different doctors to diagnose a patient, a lot of timesyou'll have five different diagnoses. Conversely, if you ask fivedifferent police officers if they would write a ticket or not forthe same offence, you possibly have five different answers."

Parents who have been sucked into the system, such as Jennifer Rambo,the mother of Sarah Bustamantes, wonder what happened to teacherstaking responsibility for school discipline.

"I was very upset at the teacher because the teacher could have juststopped it. She could have said: OK class, that's enough. She couldhave asked Sarah for her perfume and told her that's inappropriate,don't do that in class. But she did none of that. She called thepolice," she says.

Politicians and civil liberties groups have raised the same question,asking if schools are not using the police to shift responsibility,and accountability, for discipline.

"Teachers rely on the police to enforce discipline," saysSimpkins. "Part of it is that they're not accountable. They're notgoing to get into trouble for it. The parent can't come in and yellat them. They say: it's not us, it's the police."

That view is not shared by an Austin teacher who declined to benamed because he said he did not want to stigmatise the childrenin his class.

"There's this illusion that it's just a few kids acting up; kidsbeing kids. This is not the 50s. Too many parents today don'tcontrol their children. Their fathers aren't around. They're ingangs. They come in to the classroom and they have no respect, noself-discipline. They're doing badly, they don't want to learn,they just want to disrupt. They can be very threatening," hesays. "The police get called because that way the teacher can goon with teaching instead of wasting half the class dealing withone child, and it sends a message to the other kids."

The Texas State Teachers Association, the state's main teachersunion, did not take a position on ticketing at the recent debatein the legislature over Whitmire's proposal to scrap it. But theassociation's Clay Robison says that most teachers welcome thepresence of police in schools.

"Obviously it looks as if some police officers are overreacting atsome schools. I'm a parent and I wouldn't want my 17-year-old sonhauled in to court if he and another student got in to an argumentin a cafeteria. Police officers need to exercise a little bit ofcommon sense but the police are what they are. They enforce thelaw," he says. "At the same time, years ago, at a school in one ofthe better neighbourhoods of Austin, a teacher was shot to deathin his classroom. It's still a very rare occurrence but it doeshappen. Anything that increases the security of the teacher isgood so they don't have to worry about personal safety and theycan concentrate on teaching the kids. We get complaints from someteachers that the police aren't aggressive enough at moving againstsome of the older juveniles, those that they feel actually do posea danger to the teachers or the other students."

Because of Sarah Bustamentes's mental disorders, a disability rightsgroup took up her case and after months of legal battles prosecutorsdropped the charges. Ask her how she feels about police in schoolsafter her experience and she's equivocal.

"Every man in my family has been locked up. Most days I feel likeit doesn't matter what I do, how hard I try - that's my fate, too." - 11th-grade African American student, Berkeley, California

This young man isn't being cynical or melodramatic; he'sarticulating a terrifying reality for many of the children andyouth sitting in our classrooms-a reality that is often invisible ormisunderstood. Some have seen the growing numbers of security guardsand police in our schools as unfortunate but necessary responses tothe behavior of children from poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods. Butwhat if something more ominous is happening?

What if many of our students-particularly our African American,Latina/o, Native American, and Southeast Asian children-are beingchanneled toward prison and a lifetime of second-class status?

We believe that this is the case, and there is ample evidence tosupport that claim. What has come to be called the "school-to-prisonpipeline" is turning too many schools into pathways to incarcerationrather than opportunity. This trend has extraordinary implicationsfor teachers and education activists. It affects everything fromwhat we teach to how we build community in our classrooms, howwe deal with conflicts with and among our students, how we buildcoalitions, and what demands we see as central to the fight forsocial justice education.

What Is the School-to-Prison Pipeline?The school-to-prison pipeline begins in deep social and economicinequalities, and has taken root in the historic shortcomings ofschooling in this country. The civil and human rights movementsof the 1960s and '70s spurred an effort to "rethink schools"to make them responsive to the needs of all students, theirfamilies, and communities. This rethinking included collaborativelearning environments, multicultural curriculum, student-centered,experiential pedagogy-we were aiming for education as liberation. Theback-to-basics backlash against that struggle has been more rigidenforcement of ever more alienating curriculum.

The "zero tolerance" policies that today are the most extreme formof this punishment paradigm were originally written for the war ondrugs in the early 1980s, and later applied to schools. As AnnetteFuentes explains, the resulting extraordinary rates of suspensionand expulsion are linked nationally to increasing police presence,checkpoints, and surveillance inside schools.

As police have set up shop in schools across the country, thedefinition of what is a crime as opposed to a teachable moment haschanged in extraordinary ways. In one middle school we're familiarwith, a teacher routinely allowed her students to take single piecesof candy from a big container she kept on her desk. One day, severalgirls grabbed handfuls. The teacher promptly sent them to the policeofficer assigned to the school. What formerly would have been anopportunity to have a conversation about a minor transgressioninstead became a law enforcement issue.

Children are being branded as criminals at ever-younger ages. ZeroTolerance in Philadelphia, a recent report by Youth United forChange and the Advancement Project, offers an example:

Robert was an 11-year-old in 5th grade who, in his rush to getto school on time, put on a dirty pair of pants from the laundrybasket. He did not notice that his Boy Scout pocketknife was inone of the pockets until he got to school. He also did not noticethat it fell out when he was running in gym class. When the teacherfound it and asked whom it belonged to, Robert volunteered that itwas his, only to find himself in police custody minutes later. Hewas arrested, suspended, and transferred to a disciplinary school.Early contact with police in schools often sets students on a pathof alienation, suspension, expulsion, and arrests. George Galvis,an Oakland, Calif., prison activist and youth organizer, describedhis first experience with police at his school: "I was 11. Therewas a fight and I got called to the office. The cop punched me inthe face. I looked at my principal and he was just standing there,not saying anything. That totally broke my trust in school as aplace that was safe for me."

Galvis added: "The more police there are in the school, walking thehalls and looking at surveillance tapes, the more what constitutesa crime escalates. And what is seen as 'how kids act' vs. criminalbehavior has a lot to do with race. I always think about thefistfights that break out between fraternities at the Cal campus,and how those fights are seen as opposed to what the police see asgang-related fights, even if the behavior is the same."

Mass Incarceration: A Civil Rights CrisisThe growth of the school-to-prison pipeline is part of a largercrisis. Since 1970, the U.S. prison population has exploded fromabout 325,000 people to more than 2 million today. According toMichelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarcerationin the Age of Color Blindness, this is a phenomenon that cannot beexplained by crime rates or drug use. According to Human Rights Watch(Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs,2000) although whites are more likely to violate drug laws thanpeople of color, in some states black men have been admitted toprison on drug charges at rates 20 to 50 times greater than those ofwhite men. Latina/os, Native Americans, and other people of colorare also imprisoned at rates far higher than their representationin the population. Once released, former prisoners are caught in aweb of laws and regulations that make it difficult or impossible tosecure jobs, education, housing, and public assistance-and often tovote or serve on juries. Alexander calls this permanent second-classcitizenship a new form of segregation.

The impact of mass incarceration is devastating for childrenand youth. More than 7 million children have a family memberincarcerated, on probation, or on parole. Many of these childrenlive with enormous stress, emotional pain, and uncertainty. LuisEsparza describes the impact on his life in Project WHAT!'s ResourceGuide for Teens with a Parent in Prison or Jail:

After [my dad] went to jail I kept to myself a lot-became the quietkid that no one noticed and no one really cared about. At one pointI didn't even have any friends. No one talked to me, so I didn'thave to say anything about my life. . . . Inside I feel sad andangry. In this world, no one wants to see that, so I keep it allto myself. (See Haniyah's Story and Sokolower.)

Revising the CurriculumAs we at Rethinking Schools began to study and discuss theseissues, we realized the huge implications for curriculum. Manyof us, as social justice educators, have developed strong classactivities teaching the Civil Rights Movement. But few of us teachregularly about the racial realities of the current criminal justicesystem. Textbooks mostly ignore the subject. For example, PearsonPrentice Hall's United States History is a hefty 1,264 pages long,but says nothing about the startling growth in the prison populationin the past 40 years.

Mass incarceration and the school-to-prison pipeline are among theprimary forms that racial oppression currently takes in the UnitedStates. As such, they deserve a central place in the curriculum. Weneed to bring this all-too-common experience out of the shadowsand make it as visible in the curriculum as it is in so manystudents' lives. As Alexander begins to explore in our interview,it is a challenge to engage students in these issues in ways thatbuild critical thinking and determination rather than cynicism ordespair, but a challenge we urgently need to take on. Aparna Lakshmi,a Boston high school teacher, offers an example.

'Accountability' and CriminalizationThe school-to-prison pipeline is really a classroom-to-prisonpipeline. A student's trajectory to a criminalized life often beginswith a curriculum that disrespects children's lives and that doesnot center on things that matter.

Last spring Federal Policy, ESEA Reauthorization, and theSchool-to-Prison Pipeline, a collaborative study by research,education, civil rights, and juvenile justice organizations, linkedthe policies of No Child Left Behind and the "accountability"movement to the pipeline. According to George Wood, executivedirector of the Forum for Education and Democracy:

By focusing accountability almost exclusively on test scores andattaching high stakes to them, NCLB has given schools a perverseincentive to allow or even encourage students to leave.

A FairTest factsheet cites findings that schools in Florida gavelow-scoring students longer suspensions than high-scoring studentsfor similar infractions, while in Ohio students with disabilitieswere twice as likely to be suspended out of school than theirpeers. A recent report from the Advancement Project noted that,since the passage of NCLB in 2002, 73 of the largest 100 districtsin the United States "have seen their graduation rates decline-oftenprecipitously. Of those 100 districts, which serve 40 percent ofall students of color in the United States, 67 districts failed tograduate two-thirds of their students."

The more that schools-and now individual teachers-are assessed,rewarded, and fired on the basis of student test scores, themore incentive there is to push out students who bring down thosescores. And the more schools become test-prep academies as opposedto communities committed to everyone's success, the more hostileand regimented the atmosphere becomes-the more like prison. (Thisschool-as-prison culture is considerably more common in schoolspopulated by children of color in poor communities as opposedto majority-white, middle-class schools, creating what JonathanKozol calls "educational apartheid.") The rigid focus on test prepand scripted curriculum means that teachers need students to becompliant, quiet, in their seats, and willing to learn by rotefor long periods of time. Security guards, cops in the hall, andscore-conscious administrations suspend and expel "problem learners."

Schools without compassion or understanding occupy communitiesinstead of serve them. As our society accelerates punishment as acentral paradigm-from death penalty executions to drone strikesin Pakistan and Yemen-the regimentation and criminalization ofour children, particularly children of color, can only be seen astraining for the future.

Linda Christensen describes the dangerous pull of high-stakestesting on even the most seasoned teachers, and the powerful roleof student-centered curriculum as resistance.

Education Activists and the PipelineAs teachers and education activists, many of us are active in thefight to save and transform public schools-building campaigns to endstandardized testing, to protect our union rights, to prevent theprivatization of the public school system. At education conferences,there are often well-attended workshops on the criminalization ofyouth or related topics.

But the movement to end the school-to-prison pipeline and themovement to defend and transform public education are too oftenseparate. This must be one movement-for social justice education-thatencompasses both an end to the school-to-prison pipeline and thefight to save and transform public education. We cannot build safe,creative, nurturing schools and criminalize our children at thesame time.

Teachers, students, parents, and administrators have begun tofight back against zero tolerance policies-pushing to get rid ofzero tolerance laws, and creating alternative approaches to safeschool communities that rely on restorative justice and communitybuilding instead of criminalization. (See Haga.) A critical pieceof that struggle is defying the regimen of scripted curriculum andstandardized tests, and building in its place creative, empoweringschool cultures centered on the lives and needs of our studentsand their families.

Some of the most exciting work with youth is being built aroundcampaigns to stop police harassment in schools and on the streets,stop gang injunction legislation that criminalizes young people onthe basis of what they wear or where they live, and increase budgetsfor education and social services instead of law and order. Youthprovide leadership in these movements in ways that are differentfrom what we often see in classrooms. Learning from these campaignsand making the critical connections to our own work will enable usto build a viable, principled movement for public education.

My father got a bill Saturday from Telecom USA for $68.65 for threecollect calls - 3 minutes, 2 minutes and 2 minutes - on November 17,when I called him three times from the holding cell at One PolicePlaza in New York City. That's just shy of $10 a minute.The people who make calls from One Police Plaza are mostlypoor. Their possessions have been confiscated, they're sittingin a disgusting cage breathing urine fumes while police fillout paperwork, and they haven't been charged with anything - notarraigned, not booked, nothing. And in order to get through toanyone, even just for one minute, the prisoners have to dock theirfamilies ten bucks.

Telecom USA is a subsidiary of MCI, which itself is a subsidiaryof Verizon. It specializes in small services, advertised toworking-class people on grounds that they're inexpensive. "MinutePass" is written about on Telecom USA's web site as "The prepaidcard with great rates - home and away. Get rates as low as 3Â¢a minute and your minutes never expire. Get 100 BONUS minutes onyour first recharge!" "TalkSmarterUSA" is "a long distance planwith no frills and no long-term commitment. Just cost-effectivecalling and a reliable coast-to-coast network."

But the thing for which Telecom USA is most well knownis 10-10-321 and its successors, 10-10-220 and 10-10-900(1010220.com is an earlier Google search return for "Telecom USA"than telecomusa.com). Popularized during Clinton's corporatetelecomm consolidation, these would enable you to "dial around"your long-distance carrier to give you better rates on long distancecalls. The reason I know that is the same reason anyone who wasa child around the same time I was might: I remember how heavilythese features were advertised, big-time celebrity endorsementsand everything.

The cheap rates did not last as long as the memory of thosecommercials, and anyone using the service out of habit will by nowhave noticed that they're much more expensive these days, havingjumped 9.9 percent in 2001 and another 80 percent a year later. Thefact that wireless and a number of landline service plans don'tcharge extra for long distance means that the people stuck usingthese are the ones most vulnerable to scamming, the poor. 10-10-321has a flat service rate of $0.20 per minute, which, through fees,actually turns out to be $0.2276, if you can believe that. Anyonewishing to complain is not, ironically, offered a telephone numberto call, but an email address. "We urge you to contact us via E-mailat sales@tcomusa.com with any questions you have" is the entiretyof the site's "Contact Us" section.

Basically, Telecom USA is the telecommunications equivalentof a payday lender (small services offered to the poor andpacked with minutiae to rip them off), except it's owned byVerizon, the telecommunications equivalent of a bailed-outinvestment firm. Verizon is emblematic of the worst abuses of theausterity-industrial complex, dodging taxes, claiming rebates,spending tens of millions on lobbying, laying off thousands ofworkers, giving its executives exorbitant bonuses, turning overmillions of call records to government spies and championingInternet-restricting legislative measures.

An email request for information on Telecom USA's involvement in mycall (through the phone in jail, through 1-800-COLLECT or throughmy father's service provider) was not immediately answered. Nordid Verizon respond to a request for comment. But that's for thesame reason as the lack of redress for the grievances of strikingVerizon workers: capital is not interested in making nice withits employees and consumers - if HQ is yielding huge profits,everything is fine. The ownership class' diplomacy is relegated toa whole different sphere of economic activity than 99 percent of uswill ever know. For instance, in 2008, AT&T Mobility and VerizonWireless completed a wireless asset swap, "following regulatoryapproval from the FCC and Department of Justice."

Under the terms of the agreement, AT&T Mobility acquired some formerRural Cellular Corporation properties previously acquired by VerizonWireless, including licenses, network assets and subscribers, inthe Burlington, Vermont, metropolitan service area and in ruralservice areas (RSAs) in New York (RSA-2), Vermont (RSA-1, RSA-2)and Washington (RSA-2, RSA-3). AT&T also acquired a cellular licensefrom Verizon Wireless in portions of Kentucky (RSA-6).

Also under the terms of the agreement, Verizon Wireless acquiredfrom AT&T Mobility some former Dobson Communications Corporationproperties, including licenses, network assets and subscribers,in Kentucky (RSA-6 and RSA-8). Verizon Wireless also acquired tenMHz of PCS spectrum in a number of areas and received an additionalcash consideration from AT&T Mobility. These transactions satisfythe divestiture requirements related to AT&T Mobility's acquisitionof Dobson last year.

These companies are in the business of swapping entire regionalmarkets; they do not have time to worry about the paupers and debtpeons waiting endlessly in a holding cell in New York City, andthey do not have time to worry about the communications workerswhose livelihoods are at stake.

This is the face of America right now: a bill from the corporategiant who has ensured that you can't go to jail for protestingcorporate governance without it extracting $68.65 from you.

Have you wondered what $1.2 billion in airport security gets you? TheTSA has compiled its own "Top 10 Good Catches of 2011":

10) Snakes, turtles, and birds were found at Miami (MIA) and LosAngeles (LAX). I'm just happy there weren't any lions, tigers,and bears...[...]

3) Over 1,200 firearms were discovered at TSA checkpoints acrossthe nation in 2011. Many guns are found loaded with rounds in thechamber. Most passengers simply state they forgot they had a gunin their bag.

2) A loaded .380 pistol was found strapped to passenger's anklewith the body scanner at Detroit (DTW). You guessed it, he forgotit was there...

1) Small chunks of C4 explosives were found in passenger's checkedluggage in Yuma (YUM). Believe it or not, he was bringing it hometo show his family.

That's right; not a single terrorist on the list. Mostly forgetful,and entirely innocent, people. Note that they fail to point outthat the firearms and knives would have been just as easily caughtby pre-9/11 screening procedures. And that the C4 -- their #1"good catch" -- was on the return flight; they missed it the firsttime. So only 1 for 2 on that one.

The Arizona Humane Society has admitted it put down a nine-month-oldcat because the owner could not immediately pay the estimated $400to treat her.

Daniel Dockery, 49, of Phoenix, is trying to kick his heroinaddiction. Nine months ago he took in a stray kitten and foundlooking after "Scruffy" helped him with his own problems. Dockeryhad been feeding Scruffy by hand since she was four days old. Theex-con, who works as a caretaker, saved up his money to have hispet spayed. Scruffy was described as his "closest companion."

On Dec. 8, Scruffy cut herself on a barbed-wire fence and Dockeryrushed her to the nearest veterinary clinic - a branch of theArizona Humane Society. He was told it would cost $400 to treatthe laceration the cat received and that Dockery had to pay thatamount then and there. He didn't have it.

According to the Arizona Republic, Dockery asked for 24 hours sothat his mother in Michigan could wire the money to him. The HumaneSociety refused. Dockery phoned his mother from the clinic and sheoffered to give them her credit card number over the telephone. TheHumane Society again refused. Dockery was told the only way Scruffywould be treated is if Dockery surrendered his pet to the Societyand gave up all ownership to her.

Knowing that Scruffy was in pain from her injury, he agreed. Whenasked how he could get her back, the Society refused to give hima straight answer. He never saw Scruffy again.

Last Saturday, the Arizona Republic ran a story aboutDockery. According to the newspaper, they received at least150 emails expressing anger at the Humane Society for whathappened. There were also offers of money, kittens and even freeveterinary care. Angry comments were made about the way Dockery andScruffy were treated on the newspaper's website and on the HumaneSociety's Facebook page.

Yesterday, the Arizona Humane Society admitted that Scruffy waseuthanized within hours of coming into their care. The reasoncited was the lack of resources. After finding out what happened,Dockery said, "I failed her... There was no reason for her not tobe treated."

Dockery's mother believes the Humane Society thought her son washomeless and unable to care for the cat and that was the reason forrejecting the alternate funding arrangements. Many people are vowingto withdraw their support for the Arizona Humane Society. But eventhough angry, Dockery showed a lot of class. He said,"I don't want to turn people away from the Humane Society. They dodo good work."

Each year, scores of new laws are proposed to make prostitutionsomehow even more illegal than it already is.

It's not enough for some lawmakers that for the better partof a century, selling and buying sex has been illegal in everystate of the union. (The exception is the system of legalizedbrothels dotting a handful of low-population counties in Nevada,the existence of which has done little to deter an underground,illegal sex trade.) Each year, scores of new laws are proposed tomake prostitution somehow even more illegal than it already is.

These laws against prostitution don't simply increase penalties forbuying or selling sex; they extend to creating criminal consequencesfor every aspect of sex workers' lives. After just one prostitutionarrest, a person can be denied a job, an apartment, or the rightto parent her children. She could find herself followed by policejust for leaving her home.

Though it's now fashionable for some anti-prostitution activistsand lawmakers to position these laws as being of aid to prostitutes,there is absolutely no moral or legal basis for arresting and jailinga person "for her own good." Yet this is what we have been told aboutsex workers: that the conditions of prostitution are so horrificthat a jail cell is preferable. For sex workers who escape thatcell, they still must face the consequences of their prostitutionarrest, and in some cases, for the rest of their lives. Today's newanti-prostitution laws don't stop anyone from buying or selling sex- instead, they serve as tools for chipping away at people's rightsthrough profiling and surveillance, a 21st-century continuation ofthe Scarlet Letter, establishing an entire underclass of people.

Prostitution-Free ZonesAcross the United States, sex workers and people who have beenprofiled as sex workers report being followed and stopped bypolice under the pretense that anywhere a sex worker might go andanything a sex worker might do in public will lead to a criminalact. The District of Columbia has formalized this system ofprofiling and surveillance through establishing "prostitution-freezones." Under this law, the DC chief of police may declare any areaa prostitution-free zone for up to 10 days. This empowers officersto arrest "two or more persons congregating in a public space orproperty in that area for the purpose of engaging in prostitutionor prostitution-related offenses," whether or not they have actuallyengaged in a crime. A prostitution-related offense includes loiteringfor the purposes of prostitution - in other words, a vague crimemade only more criminal by the creation of a zone where it is evenmore easy to accuse and arrest you for it. Consequences include upto 180 days in jail and a $300 fine, or both.

In practice, these zones are used to give police the power tosweep entire blocks of people into jail, and overwhelmingly, itis women - women of color and transgender women in particular -who are arrested and fined. The zones end up driving sex workerseven further underground, both to live and to work, into yet moredangerous and outlying areas, so as to avoid police harassment. Inorder to make prostitution invisible, sex workers' lives are mademore dangerous. When a local human rights organization, DifferentAvenues, surveyed DC residents impacted by the zones in the yearsfollowing their adoption, they found that 80 percent of theirrespondents had been refused assistance by the police even whenthey sought it out. Transgender and Latino residents faced theworst treatment from police. Street outreach workers attempting toprovide free healthcare were harassed by police in the zones.

DC police can't answer who exactly this law is aimed to serveand protect, as it so clearly pits the health and welfare of someof DC's most vulnerable residents against assumptive notions of"public safety." How would they explain that being in public asa sex worker is now so potentially disruptive or dangerous thatit must be classified as a crime? The threat of people who appearto be prostitutes congregating is apparently so great that evenpresidents are at risk; in January 2009, a prostitution-free zonewas declared in honor of the Obama inauguration.

The law is only more perverse when one considers what a realprostitution-free zone might require in order to be maintained. Howfar would DC residents wish law enforcement to go? Should they stopand question everyone within the zone? Maybe just the women? Maybejust the women of color? Or maybe just the women of color who "looklike prostitutes"? In reality, this is exactly how these laws areused, and now DC is seeking to establish permanent prostitution-freezones throughout the city.

Condoms As EvidenceWith the prostitution-free zones, prostitution is understood to bea crime of intent. No one is actually arrested in the act of havingor agreeing to have sex for compensation; only for appearing as ifthey might do so. In the same vein, arresting officers in DC andthroughout the US routinely search people suspected of prostitutionfor condoms, confiscating them as evidence of a crime. For some cops,condoms serve the function that marijuana does in a stop-and-friskencounter (only there's no actual law against possessing or usingcondoms), unless a cop thinks you might be a sex worker or otherwisewants to move you along and into custody.

Sex workers and health and human rights advocates have pointedout that it makes absolutely no sense for publicly funded policedepartments to confiscate condoms that publicly funded healthdepartments make so widely available. Now in New York, sex workersand allies are pushing for a statewide law prohibiting condomsfrom being considered evidence of prostitution. Unsurprisingly,this has not been an easy law to advocate for with law enforcement,which claims that district attorneys and vice departments needto be able to use condoms as evidence of prostitution in orderto build cases against suspected sex traffickers - even thoughthere's no evidence that condoms are a key indicator that someoneis a victim of trafficking. Meanwhile, while lawmakers fight overthis, the Sex Workers' Project reports that "people are hesitantto carry condoms to protect themselves and others, for fear thatit will lead to arrest or be held against them in court."

The War on TraffickingUnder the guise of "fighting sex trafficking" policy makers andadvocates have proposed new laws and police practices that end uptargeting sex workers. This is part of a larger move to give policeexpanded powers and budgets to track and arrest people involved inthe sex trade. As Emi Koyama wrote in a Bitch magazine investigation,combatting forced labor in the sex trade is increasingly referredto by advocates and policymakers as the "War on Trafficking."

Like the War on Terror before it, the War on Trafficking hasmeant expanded police powers, including wiretapping of suspectedtraffickers, as well as increased collaboration with federal agencieswith the power to indefinitely detain and deport people believedto be involved in trafficking. Illinois is now the first state inthe nation to permit law enforcement to tap the phones of suspectedtraffickers. In August 2011, Cook County police were the first touse wiretapping to intercept thousands of phone calls in an allegedsex trafficking case assisted by the Department of Justice, dubbed"Operation Little Girl Lost."

However, Illinois' legal definition of a trafficker is so broad thateven nonprofit organizations could be considered traffickers forgiving any material aid -- food, clothing, shelter, even a Metrocard-- to someone in the sex trade if that person is under the age of 18.

In addition, as in DC, young people in Illinois could be lesslikely to seek out the support of these organizations. Through theadoption of Secure Communities, now a young person picked up bythe police could end up being cross-referenced with a database ofimmigration violations, and find herself and her family detained anddeported. With such broad-ranging police intervention in communities,anti-prostitution laws become yet another reason for people to fearthe police.

Are anti-prostitution laws like these intended to fight for therights, safety and well-being of people involved in the sex trade? Orare they premised solely on eradicating prostitution and puttinganyone involved in it behind bars? When advocates and policy makerscontend that they need more laws to "fight" anything involvingprostitution - even if they claim to be doing it to ensure humanrights - they must explain in whose interest these laws are. Theproblem they face isn't that existing laws simply aren't toughenough to fight prostitution; it's that there is very littleagreement about who that fight actually serves. The reality is,people still engage in the sex trade knowing that doing so exposesthem to possible surveillance, arrest and incarceration. As the sextrade persists in every regard despite the law, why would yet onemore law make a difference? Or would it only allow police to casttheir net further, jail more people, however they wish?= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Attract Government Spies by Tweeting These Words - Courthouse News Service

Homeland Security spies on Facebook and Twitter users, recordingthe activity of people who search for terms like "human to animal,""collapse" and "infection," according to an online privacy advocacygroup that has sued to peruse the agency's data.

"The initiatives were designed to gather information from 'onlineforums, blogs, public websites, and message boards,' to store andanalyze the information gathered, and then to 'disseminate relevantand appropriate de-identified information to federal, state, local,and foreign governments and private sector partners,'" accordingto the federal complaint filed in Washington, D.C.

"Previously, DHS had developed surveillance initiatives of publicchats and other online forums concerning specific events, such asthe January 2010 earthquake in Haiti, the 2010 Winter Olympics,and the April 2010 BP oil spill," EPIC also claims.

As part of the initiative, the agency would "establish [fictitious]usernames and passwords" to spy on users and record their activitiesbased on a number of search terms, including "human to animal,""collapse," "outbreak," and "illegal immigrants," the complaint says.

EPIC allegedly requested documents from Homeland Security in Aprilrelated to third-party contractors that work on social-mediamonitoring. The companies included H.B. Gar Federal, PalantirTechnologies, and Berico Technologies, according to the complaint.Homeland Security denied the request, and EPIC appealed the decision.

A request under the Freedom of Information Act to access thedocuments has gone unanswered after the department forwarded it toseveral components for processing and future response, accordingto the federal complaint.

Miami Has a Hearty Oi (Hello) for Free-Spending Brazilians - The New York Times

Even in a city that has embraced so many waves of Latinos thatit is jokingly referred to as the only South American capital inNorth America, no one group has been as courted and pampered asthe Brazilians.

Flush with cash from a booming economy and enamored of luxury,Brazilians are visiting South Florida in droves and spendingmillions of dollars on vacation condominiums, clothes, jewelry,furniture, cars and art, all of which are much less expensive herethan in Brazil.

As a thank-you, Floridians are creating innovative ways to make theBrazilians happy and to encourage them to keep dipping into theirwallets. Real estate agents, for example, have cobbled togetherone-stop-shopping firms that offer interior decorating and conciergeservices as well as legal advice and visa help. Some agents haveeven opened offices in Brazil to simplify the process.

Aware that Brazilians will not spend freely unless they feel at home,shopping malls have enticed them by hiring Portuguese-speaking salesclerks to proffer Dolce & Gabbana dresses and Hublot watches. EvenTarget has posted help-wanted signs in Portuguese.

Brazilian restaurants are also flourishing across Miami, includinga popular chain from Brazil - Giraffas - that includes Braziliancheese bread and special cuts of meat on the menu.

"Hola" and air kisses are still staples here, but "Oi" - a Braziliangreeting - is making noticeable inroads.

"We come to Miami to invest because in my country housing is veryexpensive," said Claudio Coppola Di Todaro, a hedge fund investorfrom SÃ£o Paulo who recently bought a condominium at Trump Towersin Sunny Isles Beach and another at the Trump SoHo in Manhattan(Brazilians also love New York). "We like Miami to go on vacationa few times a year. Many Brazilians do this now."

While the United States and Europe continue to grapplewith recession, Brazil's economy gallops forward, poweredby exports, a growing manufacturing base and abundant naturalresources. Unemployment in October was 5.8 percent, and this weekit passed Britain to become the sixth-largest economy in the world.

Brand-conscious Brazilians love to use their money - cash, aboveall - ranking first per capita in spending among the top 10 groupsof foreign visitors to the United States, a list that includes theFrench, British and Germans. In all, 1.2 million Brazilians visitedin 2010 and spent $5.9 billion, or $4,940 for each visitor. Onlytravelers from India and China outspent the Brazilians, but farfewer visit, and they are not among the top 10.

The Commerce Department expects the total number of Brazilianvisitors will be even higher this year. Their economic impactis so powerful that the travel, restaurant, lodging and retailindustries, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have beenlobbying Washington to let Brazilians travel here without visas,as the citizens of the European Union countries do. In November,the State Department agreed to add more consular officers to speedup the visa process.

American Airlines now has 52 flights a week to Miami from five citiesin Brazil, and has applied for more routes. Because it receivesthe highest number of visitors from Brazil, Florida has benefitedmost from the country's new wealth and the expansion of its middleclass. Most of the Brazilians who come to the United States visitFlorida, and in the first nine months of this year, an estimated1.1 million Brazilians spent $1.6 billion in the state, an increaseof nearly 60 percent from the previous year. Among foreign nations,only Canada sends more visitors to Florida.

The Brazilians' money has helped resuscitate the real estate marketin Miami. Foreigners account for more than half of all propertysales in Miami, and condominium towers that once sat empty arequickly selling out.

"Brazilians in many ways have been the saving grace here," saidEdgardo Defortuna, president of Fortune International Realty,which has offices in Brazil and Miami. "Price is not much of anissue for them."

Brazilians here slip into the Latin American lifestyle - late dinnersand familiar fashions, food familiar music. And the relative safetyof the United States is a bonus. Rio de Janeiro's murder rate,while declining, is nearly triple of that in Miami.Eager to shop and spend time with friends and family, extendednetworks of Brazilians often buy condominiums in the same building,like the W in South Beach.

"In Miami, they can come here and wear expensive watches anddrive their convertible cars, and nobody will cut your arm for apiece of jewelry, like happens at home," said Alexandre Piquet,a Brazilian lawyer for Piquet Realty, which was founded by hisbrother, Cristiano, a well-known race-car driver. "Here we don'thave to worry about kids crossing the street and getting kidnapped,some of the issues we still face down there. It's the reality."

Piquet Realty, founded in 2005 has doubled its business in thepast year, Cristiano Piquet said. Some apartments it sells comefully furnished by Artefacto, a prominent Brazilian furnituredesigner. If Brazilians need help with legal transactions, taxmatters or immigration advice, the firm offers that, too. If acustomer wants a Ferrari, Piquet Realty arranges it.

Like so many businesses in South Florida, the firm aggressivelypromotes itself in Brazil, as does Miami's tourism board andGov. Rick Scott of Florida, who traveled to Brazil this year on atrade mission.

Now, Orlando is trying to lure Brazilians, who prefer the city'soutlet malls over its theme parks. Pegasus Transportation operatesregular shopping tours, bringing thousands of Brazilians to themalls. The Tommy Hilfiger clothing outlet and H.H. Gregg electronicstore open early just for them.

This zest for spreading cash is the main reason why the visa battleis beginning to resonate on Capitol Hill.

There are only four American Consular offices in Brazil, acountry almost the size of the United States. To get a visa,many Brazilian must travel long distances to be interviewed at aconsular office. Despite the onerous process, there were 820,000visa applications this year, with an average wait of 50 days -too long, tourism officials say.

Lobbyists are pressuring Congress and the State Department to changethe process. Barring that, they are pushing for more consular officesand a pilot program that would screen visa applicants through videoconferences. Seven bills are pending in Congress on the visa issue.

In the meantime, tourism officials say, Europe siphons away alarge number of Brazilians because traveling there is so mucheasier. Western Europe receives 52 percent of all Brazilians whotravel abroad and the United States 29 percent.

Latest Anonymous Hack of Security Company Proves How SeriousCyber-Activists Have Gotten

As long as western governments fail to live up to their ideals,there will be those who are determined to embarrass them.

Over Christmas a busy, secretive group were at work, with theirown views on who had been naughty and nice. However it was notSanta's elves, but the amorphous "Anonymous" collective makingthe decisions. This group of hackers released a vast trove ofemail addresses, passwords and credit card information belongingto subscribers of the US intelligence company Stratfor - and thehangover has carried on into the new year, with the release of MoDand Nato officials' details.

Stratfor, an authority on strategic and tactical intelligence issues,is considered by some to be a "shadow CIA", and provides intelligenceanalysis and both private and public briefings on all manner ofissues. The release by Anonymous kicked off discussion about howsuch a breach was possible at a high-profile company specialising inall things security, as well as why it had attracted the attentionof Anonymous.

Many of the thousands of email addresses and personal detailsbelonged to people in sensitive posts within the defence andintelligence communities. Although the publication of email addresses(hardly state secrets) is not a threat in itself, their disclosurecan only be extremely embarrassing for a company selling itself as anexpert on security, while the release of passwords adds to the alarm.

But it is a mistake to talk of Anonymous's motives as if it werea cohesive whole. The group is a loose collection of people withdifferent aims, involving themselves in different "operations"as they see fit. It is leaderless, it doesn't have a manifesto,it doesn't have a particular direction, nor does it go in only onedirection at any one time. Given that membership of Anonymous isbased entirely on self-identification, it seems that the only realway of assessing the group as a whole is on the basis of the kindsof actions it carries out. It is essentially a banner under whichhacktivists and tech-savvy individuals with a political or socialagenda can rally.

So why attack Stratfor? Well, as Anonymous put it, "to wreak unholyhavok [sic] upon the systems and personal email accounts of theserich and powerful oppressors. Kill, kitties, kill and burn themdown ... peacefully. XD XD." Yet, despite the mischievous way itexpresses itself, a significant portion of Anonymous's focus ispolitical. It's not just about lulz or showing off any more. Thepoint of these actions is to draw attention to how companies such asStratfor, or organisations such as Nato are, in its view, "holdersof power in a world that has long been governed in accordance withthe dictate that might makes right".

The various Anonymous communication channels, and supporters, wouldpoint to what they see as moves in the US to restrict liberty,from the Bradley Manning case to the so-called Stop Online PiracyAct, which will give unprecedented web censorship powers; from thetreatment of Occupy protesters to the National Defence AuthorisationAct opening up indefinite detention without trial. You don't need tobe a hacker to think that the US is more deserving of a restrainingorder than a special relationship.

On this side of the Atlantic a recent government report on what itinsists on calling "cyber" security, names hacktivism explicitly asa threat to national security. Yet nowhere is it made clear in theobjectives of that report what the Ministry of Defence or Home Officeare actually supposed to do about it. The omission may be sinisteror merely incompetent. But as the Nato and MoD leaks highlight theporous nature of our online defences, taxpayers are entitled toask what we are getting for the GBP650m the national cyber securityprogramme costs. Or maybe not - after all, the lion's share of thespending is going to GCHQ and is secret. For now.

I have pointed out before that if people feel that the usualdemocratic routes are pointless they will find means of direct actionand protest. Many balk at Anonymous's apparent disregard for thepotential human collateral in their methods - but there is no denyingthat its mix of satire and activism is a powerful combination.

As I am writing this, Stratfor's website reads: "Stratfor GlobalIntelligence. As you may know, an unauthorised party illegallyobtained and disclosed personally identifiable information ... ofsome of our subscribers." It looks laughably unintelligent. In onefell swoop it exposes an uncomfortable truth that cyber-securityexperts would have us pay through the nose to ignore: as longas western governments fail to live up to their ideals and ours,there will always remain those who are equally determined and ableto expose their secrets and embarrass those in power. The lulz justgot serious.

Over Christmas a busy, secretive group were at work, with theirown views on who had been naughty and nice. However it wasnot Santa's elves, but the amorphous "Anonymous" collectivemaking the decisions. This group of hackers released a vast troveof email addresses, passwords and credit card information belongingto subscribers of the US intelligence company Stratfor - and thehangover has carried on into the new year, with the release of MoDand Nato officials' details.

Stratfor, an authority on strategic and tactical intelligence issues,is considered by some to be a "shadow CIA", and provides intelligenceanalysis and both private and public briefings on all manner ofissues. The release by Anonymous kicked off discussion about howsuch a breach was possible at a high-profile company specialising inall things security, as well as why it had attracted the attentionof Anonymous.

Many of the thousands of email addresses and personal detailsbelonged to people in sensitive posts within the defence andintelligence communities. Although the publication of email addresses(hardly state secrets) is not a threat in itself, their disclosurecan only be extremely embarrassing for a company selling itself as anexpert on security, while the release of passwords adds to the alarm.

But it is a mistake to talk of Anonymous's motives as if it werea cohesive whole. The group is a loose collection of people withdifferent aims, involving themselves in different "operations"as they see fit. It is leaderless, it doesn't have a manifesto,it doesn't have a particular direction, nor does it go in only onedirection at any one time. Given that membership of Anonymous isbased entirely on self-identification, it seems that the only realway of assessing the group as a whole is on the basis of the kindsof actions it carries out. It is essentially a banner under whichhacktivists and tech-savvy individuals with a political or socialagenda can rally.

So why attack Stratfor? Well, as Anonymous put it, "to wreak unholyhavok [sic] upon the systems and personal email accounts of theserich and powerful oppressors. Kill, kitties, kill and burn themdown ... peacefully. XD XD." Yet, despite the mischievous way itexpresses itself, a significant portion of Anonymous's focus ispolitical. It's not just aboutlulz or showing off any more. Thepoint of these actions is to draw attention to how companies such asStratfor, or organisations such as Nato are, in its view, "holdersof power in a world that has long been governed in accordance withthe dictate that might makes right".

The various Anonymous communication channels, and supporters, wouldpoint to what they see as moves in the US to restrict liberty,from the Bradley Manning case to the so-called Stop Online PiracyAct, which will give unprecedented web censorship powers; from thetreatment of Occupy protesters to the National Defence AuthorisationAct opening up indefinite detention without trial. You don't need tobe a hacker to think that the US is more deserving of a restrainingorder than a special relationship.

On this side of the Atlantic a recent government report on what itinsists on calling "cyber" security, names hacktivism explicitly asa threat to national security. Yet nowhere is it made clear in theobjectives of that report what the Ministry of Defence or Home Officeare actually supposed to do about it. The omission may be sinisteror merely incompetent. But as the Nato and MoD leaks highlight theporous nature of our online defences, taxpayers are entitled toask what we are getting for the Â£650m the national cyber securityprogramme costs. Or maybe not - after all, the lion's share of thespending is going to GCHQ and is secret. For now.

I have pointed out before that if people feel that the usualdemocratic routes are pointless they will find means of direct actionand protest. Many balk at Anonymous's apparent disregard for thepotential human collateral in their methods - but there is no denyingthat its mix of satire and activism is a powerful combination.

As I am writing this, Stratfor's website reads: "Stratfor GlobalIntelligence. As you may know, an unauthorised party illegallyobtained and disclosed personally identifiable information ... ofsome of our subscribers." It looks laughably unintelligent. In onefell swoop it exposes an uncomfortable truth that cyber-securityexperts would have us pay through the nose to ignore: as longas western governments fail to live up to their ideals and ours,there will always remain those who are equally determined and ableto expose their secrets and embarrass those in power. The lulz justgot serious.

Although it is not apparent on his financial disclosure form, MittRomney has millions of dollars of his personal wealth in investmentfunds set up in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven.

A spokesperson for the Romney campaign says Romney follows all taxlaws and he would pay the same in taxes regardless of where thefunds are based.

As the race for the Republican nomination heats up, Mitt Romney isfinding it increasingly difficult to maintain a shroud of secrecyaround the details about his vast personal wealth, including, asABC News has discovered, his investment in funds located offshoreand his ability to pay a lower tax rate.

"His personal finances are a poster child of what's wrong with theAmerican tax system," said Jack Blum, a Washington lawyer who isan authority on tax enforcement and offshore banking.

On Tuesday, Romney disclosed that he has been paying a far lowerpercentage in taxes than most Americans, around 15 percent of hisannual earnings. It has been Romney's Republican rivals who havedriven the tax issue onto center stage. For weeks, Romney has citeda desire for privacy as his reason for not sharing his tax returns-- a gesture of transparency that is now expected from presidentialcontenders.

"I can tell you we follow the tax laws," he said recently while onthe campaign trail in New Hampshire. "And if there's an opportunityto save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will followthat opportunity."

But tax experts tell ABC News there are other reasons Romney maynot want the public viewing his returns. As one of the wealthiestcandidates to run for president in recent times, Romney has used avariety of techniques to help minimize the taxes on his estimated$250 million fortune. In addition to paying the lower tax rate onhis investment income, Romney has as much as $8 million investedin at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry. Anotherinvestment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 millionand $25 million, shows up on securities records as having beendomiciled in the Caymans.

Official documents reviewed by ABC News show that Bain Capital,the private equity partnership Romney once ran, has set up some138 secretive offshore funds in the Caymans.

Romney campaign officials and those at Bain Capital tell ABCNews that the purpose of setting up those accounts in the CaymanIslands is to help attract money from foreign investors, and thatthe accounts provide no tax advantage to American investors likeRomney. Romney, the campaign said, has paid all U.S. taxes on incomederived from those investments.

"The tax consequences to the Romneys are the very same whether thefund is domiciled here or another country," a campaign officialsaid in response to questions. "Gov. and Mrs. Romney have moneyinvested in funds that the trustee has determined to be attractiveinvestment opportunities, and those funds are domiciled whereverthe fund sponsors happen to organize the funds."

Bain officials called the decision to locate some funds offshoreroutine, and a benefit only to foreign investors who do not wantto be subjected to U.S. taxes.

Tax experts agree that Romney remains subject to American taxes. Butthey say the offshore accounts have provided him -- and Bain --with other potential financial benefits, such as higher managementfees and greater foreign interest, all at the expense of theU.S. Treasury. Rebecca J. Wilkins, a tax policy expert with Citizensfor Tax Justice, said the federal government loses an estimated$100 billion a year because of tax havens.

Blum, the D.C. tax lawyer, said working through an offshoreinvestment vehicle allows the investor to "avoid a whole series ofsmall traps in the tax code that ordinary people would face if theypaid tax on an onshore basis."

Wilkins agreed, saying the "primary advantage to setting thosefunds up in an offshore jurisdiction like the Cayman Islands orBermuda is it helps the investors avoid tax."

"It helps U.S. investors avoid U.S. tax," said Wilkins, "it helpsforeign investors avoid taxes in their home country, so it's notillegal or improper to set those funds up in a foreign jurisdiction,but it makes it more attractive to investors because it helps themavoid paying taxes on that income."

Bain Accounts in the Cayman IslandsBain's presence in the Cayman Islands is not something the firmadvertises. The Los Angeles Times first disclosed Romney's offshoreaccounts in 2007, during his initial run for the presidency. ABCNews found references to the firm's accounts in the Caymans in thefootnotes of securities filings. When ABC News went to the officeaddress listed for Romney's Bain funds, lawyers in the Caymans werenot eager to answer questions.

Asked if he could confirm the existence of the Bain accounts,David Byrne, the chief marketing officer for the law firm Walkers,listed on documents as Bain's Caymans' representative, said hecould not. "No, I can't at all," said Byrne. "Unfortunately,I can't comment at all on that."

There is now less secrecy than there was even two weeks agosurrounding Romney's tax rate. The money he made through Baininvestments was taxed as capital gains at a 15 percent rate, insteadof the higher tax rates borne by most Americans. Newt Gingrich toldreporters Wednesday that his income was taxed at 31 percent.

The so-called "carried interest" rule has been the source ofextensive debate in Washington, with opponents criticizing theallowance to tax those earnings at 15 percent a glaring loopholethat benefits only the wealthiest Americans. Under the carriedinterest rule, income that is determined to be capital gains -like the profit reaped by hedge fund managers -- is subject to thelower 15 percent rate.

Wilkins said Romney's arrangements reminded her of the now famousremarks by billionaire financier Warren Buffet, who revealed in2007 that he was paying taxes at a lower rate than his receptionist.

"Well, I think it's the issue that is sort of on the front pageevery day, when we look at the Occupy Wall Street movement andthat people are really losing patience with the idea that a lot ofmultinational corporations have and a lot of wealthy people havethat while they benefit from everything this country has to offer... they don't seem to be willing to pay their fair share," she said.Romney, who left Bain in 1999, has confirmed that his earningslargely come from investments, and the tax rate he pays is consistentwith that "because my last 10 years, my income comes overwhelminglyfrom some investments made in the past, whether ordinary income orearned annually. I got a little bit of income from my book, but Igave that all away. And then I get speaker's fees from time to time,but not very much."

"A peek into the future can sometimes be best viewed by a good lookat the past!" - Dr. Walter Belford, conversations December 2011

We thought that for this, our 18th anniversary, issue, we'd takea look at the past and see what we wrote from our past missive,circa January 2001, 12 years ago!

Bear in mind, the below article was written a full nine monthsPRIOR to 9/11/2001!

From the Publisher's Desk, January 2001

Happy New Year from the terrocrats

Repression

Normally I limit my time in front of the one eyed monster(television) to a few good movies and programs of interest. Howeverduring the holidays I broke down and viewed more than my usualshare of the telly. One program of great interest was a biographyabout Fidel Castro.

One is amazed that along with 85 others in a 30-foot boat, Castrolanded in Cuba and within ten years overthrew the (former) governmentand has ruled Cuba with an iron fist ever since. Not that I admireCastro, but he does have tenacity and it goes to prove what a fewdetermined persons can accomplish. He's been a pain in the arsefor the US for more than 40 years now.

However what really grabbed my attention was a reoccurring themepeppered with numerous statements made during interviews from longimprisoned (former) comrades and political foes of Fidel; at leastthose who weren't summarily executed during the dawn of the 1959-60revolution. What brought into focus this article was what one formerclose ally and personal friend of Castro said. Since he spent 30years in a Cuban prison for failing to overthrown Fidel in 1965,I guess he knows what he is talking about!

Castro's former pal said, and I paraphrase here:"The repression started immediately, as soon as Castro grabbedpower. He immediately started tapping everyone's phone calls,intercepted all communications and opened letters. This was doneunder the pretence of national security and hardly anyone paidattention to it ....at first! By the time the masses realised whathappened, it was too late!"

National security! Doesn't that sound familiar? Terrocrats aroundthe world are repeating a similar mantra about "national security"and the threat from terrorists, paedophiles, drug dealers, moneylaunderers, etc. as their "raison d'etre" for enacting inhibitorylaws curtailing the privacy and freedom of 99.999% of the innocentcitizens who use the Internet, send faxes, place phone and mobilecalls as well as other modes of communication.

The interception of e-mail, encryption, web browsing, mobile phonecalls, faxes and ever more telephone taps are subjected to increasinginfringements by law enforcement agencies (and others) world-widewith little or no warrants in most cases nor accountability toanyone other than self appointed department heads. Many nations lawenforcement agencies are illegally "warehousing" raw communicationdata indefinitely for who knows what purpose? Worse the publicappears to care little about this threat to privacy and aredoing nothing to stop it, save a few brave freedom and privacyorganisations.

Even withdrawing CASH from an ATM machines is traceable todaywith the technology employed by Echelon. It's frightening. Addinto the factor Carnivore, RIP and other privacy thieving lawsand technologies that are spreading around the world faster thanHIV/AIDS, and we are loosing our privacy and freedom's faster thanat any period during our lifetime.

2,000 additional close circuit TV cameras are forthcoming to London,which already has more CCTV's per capita than any other city inthe world. Public buses and private taxis in Australia have littlecameras hidden and the data stored under terrocratic control for whoknows what purpose. Now the same tiny cameras are being installedthroughout the United Kingdom following Australia's' lead and'success' with the tiny buggers. Word has it that Amerika is nextin line for the little bugs! The terrocrats are starting to installtiny CCTV cameras on both international and domestic airline flightsin the sake of preventing 'hijackings', as if a CCTV is going todeter a hijacker. What a crock of BS that is. The terrocrats goal;all airline flights to be recorded within 5 years! FYI and justin case you've forgotten, there hasn't been a US airline hijackingoriginating in the USA or Western Europe for more than 20 years!

Laws have been passed in most countries that allow the terrocratsto grab your data under penalty of prison should you resist andan even harsher sentence should you tell anyone about it. Echelontechnology records every phone, mobile, fax and data transmissionaround the world whilst searching for "key words," which triggersfurther investigation. DNA is taken and used by insurance companiesand many others without your permission. CCTV cameras record yourevery move throughout your entire day and night! 5 to 12 year-olds(mostly American) school children are finger printed and ID'ed forno apparent legal reason. The list goes on ad nauseum.

No solace Repression is an insidious condition that always startsunder a false pretence. In today's world that delusive pretenceis called national security, i.e. drug traffickers, paedophiles,money launderer's, etc. It's used by the terrocrats to wronglytake away your right to privacy in addition to your personalfreedoms, both personal and financial. What difference does itmake if someone steals all of your privacy and freedoms all atonce, like Castro did, or its stolen a little bit at a time untilyou've lost everything, like your government is doing today? Theanswer: There's no difference. Your privacy and freedom's are lost,i.e. have been stolen under a false pretence. To the terrocrats,the end justifies the means!

Repression is defined as: A state of forcible subjugation

Subjugation is defined as: Forced submission to control by others.

Think about the above definitions! Do any of the laws or actionsyour government passed or is considering meet that criteria ordefinition? Will your government allow you to legally OPT OUT ofany laws in your country in order to protect YOUR personal andfinancial privacy?

Sadly many, if not all fit these arcane, mercurial laws andprivacy invading laws enacted and spreading worldwide by theterrocrats. When the routine physical movements, communicationsand financial transactions of 99.999% of the innocent citizensof the world are under the scrutiny of some unknown and unseenpower (hidden terrocrats), who in turn can force you to hand overencryption keys and or outright steal your communications underpenalty of prison, and WITHOUT your permission, knowledge or anylegal warrant, I can think of no better a term than "REPRESSION"to sum up what is happening worldwide today.

The NYPD is in hot water with civil rights groups over itscontroversial Stop-and-Frisk policy. But, NYPD Commissioner RayKelly has a solution-handheld weapons scanners that see guns underclothing! Fourth Amendment? What's that?

As Kelly told a State of the NYPD breakfast Tuesday, the departmentis developing a mobile, infrared scanner mechanism that wouldallow officers to detect concealed weapons similar to the way thatfull-body scanners at airports work. The Department of Defenseis also working with the NYPD to develop the technology, thoughdetails are still rather scarce.

Don't forget what elitist eugenicist Prince Philip said,"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to returnas a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solveoverpopulation." Know thy enemy. - Ed)

A virus with the potential to kill up to half the world's populationhas been made in a lab. Now academics and bioterrorism experts arearguing over whether to publish the recipe, and whether the researchshould have been done in the first place.

The virus is an H5N1 bird flu strain which was genetically alteredto become much more contagious. It was created by Ron Fouchierof the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, whofirst presented his work to the public at an influenza conferencein Malta in September.

In the ten or so years since bird flu first emerged in Asia,fewer than 600 cases have been reported in humans. But the H5N1strain is particularly vicious, killing roughly half of patientsdiagnosed with it. What stops it from becoming a major threat topublic health is that it does not readily transmit from human tohuman. Or at least it didn't - until now.

Researchers in Fouchier's team used ferrets - test animals whichclosely mimic the human response to influenza - and transmitted H5N1from one to another to make it more adaptable to new hosts. After 10generations, the virus had mutated to become airborne, which meansferrets became ill from merely being near other diseased animals.

A genetic study showed that the new, dangerous strain had only fivemutations compared to the original one, and all of them were earlierseen in the natural environment - just not all at once. Fouchier'sstrain is as contagious as the human seasonal flu, which kills tensof thousands of people each year, but is likely to cause many morefatalities if released.

"I can't think of another pathogenic organism that is as scaryas this one," Paul Keim, a microbial geneticist who has workedon anthrax for many years, told Science Insider. "I don't thinkanthrax is scary at all compared to this."

Now Keim, who chairs the US National Science Advisory Boardfor Biosecurity (NSABB), and other members of the body, have avery difficult decision to make. Fouchier wants his study to bepublished. So does virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka, who led similarresearch in collaboration with the University of Wisconsin, Madison,and the University of Tokyo, and reached comparable results. Andit is up to NSABB to give them the green light.

Many academics and biosecurity experts are naturally cautious aboutreleasing information which could provide any bioterrorist witha ready recipe to hold the world to ransom. Some argue that suchwork should never have been done in the first place and call forinternational monitoring of potentially harmful research.

One of our readers from the Philippines, emailed the followingarticle.

World Economic Freedom: Phl improves to 107th - Jose Katigbak

Washington - Despite a challenging global economic environment, thePhilippines has risen in the world economic rankings to 107 from 115previously, said a report by the Heritage Foundation, an influentialconservative think tank in Washington, and The Wall Street Journal.

The 2012 Index of World Economic Freedom released on Thursday saidamong 179 countries rated, the Philippines had the 107th freesteconomy with a score of 57.1.

The report said the country's score was 0.9 point higher than lastyear, attributable in large part to a significant improvement inbusiness freedom.

Hong Kong with 89.9 points and Singapore (87.5) ranked firstand second in the overall standings for the 18th straight year,followed in order by Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada,Chile, Mauritius, Ireland and the United States.

North Korea at the bottom of the standings had an overall scoreof one.

The Philippines improved its scores in four of the 10 specificcategories (scores the previous year are in brackets): businessfreedom 54.3 (43.4), labor freedom 51.7 (50.7), monetary freedom 77.1(76.3) and fiscal freedom 79.1 (78.8).

Its scores dropped in government spending 89.7 (91) and trade freedom75.5 (77.8) and there were no changes in scores for freedom fromcorruption, 24; investment freedom, 40; financial freedom, 50;and property rights, 30.

The Philippines ranked 19th out of 41 countries in the Asia-Pacificregion.

Its overall score of 57.1 was slightly below the world average of59.5 and the regional average of 57.5.

The report said the Philippine economy has been on a steady pathof economic expansion, with the government pursuing a series oflegislative reforms to enhance the entrepreneurial environmentand developing a stronger private sector to generate broader-basedjob growth.

Despite some progress, corruption continues to undermine prospectsfor long-term economic development and the judiciary, which remainssusceptible to political interference, does not provide effectiveprotection for property rights or strong and transparent enforcementof the law, the report said.

As the Supreme Court gets ready to hear oral arguments in a caseTuesday that could determine if authorities can track U.S. citizenswith GPS vehicle trackers without a warrant, a young man inCalifornia has come forward to Wired to reveal that he found notone but two different devices on his vehicle recently.

The 25-year-old resident of San Jose, California, says he foundthe first one about three weeks ago on his Volvo SUV while visitinghis mother in Modesto, about 80 miles northeast of San Jose. Aftercontacting Wired and allowing a photographer to snap pictures ofthe device, it was swapped out and replaced with a second trackingdevice. A witness also reported seeing a strange man looking beneaththe vehicle of the young man's girlfriend while her car was parkedat work, suggesting that a tracking device may have been retrievedfrom her car.

Then things got really weird when police showed up during a Wiredinterview with the man.

The young man, who asked to be identified only as Greg, is one amongan increasing number of U.S. citizens who are finding themselvestracked with the high-tech devices.

The Justice Department has said that law enforcement agentsemploy GPS as a crime-fighting tool with "great frequency," andGPS retailers have told Wired that they've sold thousands of thedevices to the feds.

But little is known about how or how often law enforcement agentsuse them. And without a clear ruling requiring agents to obtain a"probable cause" warrant to use the devices, it leaves citizens whomay have only a distant connection to a crime or no connection atall vulnerable to the whimsy of agents who are fishing for a case.

The invasive technology, for example, allows police, the FBI, theDrug Enforcement Administration and other agencies to engage incovert round-the-clock surveillance over an extended period of time,collecting vast amounts of information about anyone who drives thevehicle that is being tracked.

"A person who knows all of another's travels can deduce whetherhe is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym,an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment,an associate of particular individuals or political groups -and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts,"wrote U.S. Appeals Court Judge Douglas Ginsburg in a recent rulingthat the Supreme Court will be examining this week to determine ifwarrants should be required for use with trackers.

Greg says he discovered the first tracker on his vehicle afternoticing what looked like a cell phone antenna inside a hole onhis back bumper where a cable is stored for towing a trailer. Thedevice, the size of a mobile phone, was not attached to a batterypack, suggesting the battery was embedded in its casing.

The first GPS tracker found was slipped into a fabric sleeve,containing magnets, and placed on the underside of the vehicle inthe wheel well of the spare tire.

A week later when he was back in San Jose, he checked the device,and it appeared to have been repositioned slightly on the vehicleto make it less visible. It was placed on the underside of the carin the wheel well that holds a spare tire.

Greg, a Hispanic American who lives in San Jose at the home ofhis girlfriend's parents, contacted Wired after reading a storypublished last year about an Arab-American citizen named YasirAfifi who found a tracking device on his car. Greg wanted to knowwhat he should do with the device.

Afifi believed he was being tracked by authorities for six monthsbefore a mechanic discovered the device on his car when he tookit into a garage for an oil change. He apparently came undersurveillance after the FBI received a vague tip from someone who saidAfifi might be a threat to national security. Afifi has filed a suitagainst the government, asserting that authorities violated his civilliberties by placing the device on his vehicle without a warrant andwithout suspicion of a crime. His attorney, Zahra Billoo, told Wiredthis week that she's requested a stay in her client's case, pendinga ruling by the Supreme Court in the GPS tracking case now before it.

Greg's surveillance appears to involve different circumstances. Itmost likely involves a criminal drug investigation centered aroundhis cousin, a Mexican citizen who fled across the border to thatcountry a year ago and may have been involved in the drug trade asa dealer.

"He took off. I think he was fleeing. I think he committed a crime,"Greg told Wired.com, asserting that he himself is not involvedin drugs.

Greg says he bought the SUV from his cousin in June, paying cashfor it to a family member. He examined the car at the time and foundno tracking device on it. A month later, he drove his cousin's wifeto Tijuana. Greg says he remained in Mexico a couple of days beforereturning to the U.S.

The first GPS tracker, out of its sleeve. Photo courtesy of Greg.It's possible the surveillance began shortly after his return,but Greg discovered the device only about three weeks ago duringhis visit to Modesto. The device was slipped into a sleeve thatcontained small magnets to affix it to the car.

On Tuesday, Nov. 1, Wired photographer Jon Snyder went to San Joseto photograph the device. The next day, two males and one femaleappeared suddenly at the business where Greg's girlfriend works,driving a Crown Victoria with tinted windows. A witness reported toGreg that one of the men jumped out of the car, bent under the frontof the girlfriend's car for a few seconds, then jumped back into theCrown Victoria and drove off. Wired was unable to confirm the story.

The following day, Greg noticed that the GPS tracker on his owncar had been replaced with a different tracker, this one encasedin a clam shell cover attached to a large round magnet to hold thedevice to the car. The device was attached to a 3.6 VDC LithiumPolymer rechargeable battery.

There was no writing on the tracker to identify its maker, but alabel on the battery indicated that it's sold by a small firm inFarmingdale, New York, called Revanche. A notice on a government website last June indicates that it was seeking 500 of the batteriesand 250 battery chargers for the Drug Enforcement Administration. Aseparate notice on the same site in 2008 refers to a contract forwhat appears to be a similar Revanche battery. The notice indicatesthe batteries work with GPS devices made by Nextel and Sendum.

A spokeswoman with the DEA's office in San Francisco, however,declined to say if the device on Greg's vehicle was theirs."We cannot comment on our means or methods that we use, so I cannotprovide you with any additional information," said DEA spokeswomanCasey McEnry.

The second device on Greg's vehicle appears to be a Sendum PT200GPS tracker with the factory battery swapped out and replacedwith the Revanche battery. The Sendum GPS tracker is marketed toprivate investigators, law enforcement and transportation securitymanagers and sells for about $430 without the battery. With thefactory battery "it will last 7-15 days reporting every hour ina good cellular coverage zone," according to marketing literaturedescribing it, and it uses CDMA cellular communications and gpsOnelocation services to determine its location.

When this reporter drove down to meet Greg and photograph thesecond tracker with photographer Snyder, three police cars appearedat the location that had been pre-arranged with Greg, at variouspoints driving directly behind me without making any verbal contactbefore leaving.

After moving the photo shoot to a Rotten Robbie gas station a mileaway from the first location, another police car showed up. In thiscase, the officer entered the station smiling at me and turned hiscar around to face the direction of Greg's car, a couple hundredyards away. He remained there while the device was photographed. Apassenger in the police car, dressed in civilian clothes, steppedout of the vehicle to fill a gas container, then the two leftshortly before the photo shoot was completed.

The Obama administration will be defending the warrantless use ofsuch trackers in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning. Theadministration, which is attempting to overturn a lower court rulingthat threw out a drug dealer's conviction over the warrantless useof a tracker, argues that citizens have no expectation of privacywhen it comes to their movements in public so officers don't needto get a warrant to use such devices.

It's unclear if authorities obtained a warrant to track Greg'svehicle. While Greg says he's committed no crimes and has nothingto hide, the not-so-stealthy police maneuver at his girlfriend'splace of employment makes it look to others like she's involved insomething nefarious, he says. That concerns him.

The Florida Senate Rules Committee has proposed a bill that wouldrequire the state's Department of Corrections to privatize allprisons and other correctional facilities in 18 counties, accordingto the News Service of Florida.

The state legislature passed nearly the same measure last year,but the law was ruled unconstitutional in court because it didn'tgo through the committee process, violating the Florida Constitution.

The second largest private prison company in the world, GEO Group,has donated $822,000 to political campaigns in Florida, accordingto the nonpartisan National Institute on Money in Politics. Thecompany also spent $25,000 for Florida Gov. Rick Scott's (R)inauguration party.

"We've been saying all along that these proposed prison closures areabout turning Florida's prisons over to for-profit corporations,"Ken Wood, Acting President of Teamsters Local 2011, said. "This ispayback to the powerful prison corporations that spend millions onlobbyists and political donations."

"Both the privatization bill and these closures are being rushedthrough without any public input and zero transparency. We haveno evidence that privatizing prisons would save money and plentyof evidence that it won't. Closing and privatizing prisons woulddevastate the dedicated correctional officers, their families andnearby small businesses.For-profit prisons are associated with heightened levels of violencetoward prisoners and have limited incentives to reduce future crime,according to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The perverse incentives to maximize profits and cut corners - evenat the expense of safety and decent conditions - may contribute to anunacceptable level of danger in private prisons," the report stated.

After spending a month in solitary confinement in a GEO Groupoperated Texas prison, 32-year-old Jesus Manuel Galindo allegedlydied of an epileptic seizure in December 2008. The cell lacked anoperational intercom, which would have allowed Galindo - who neededregular medical attention - to call for help. The neurologist whoreviewed Galindo's autopsy said he was "set up to die."

Recently the Internal Revenue Service released long-awaited formsand guidance for the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act law (Fatca),which Congress passed in 2010. As noted in a recent Weekend Investorcover story, "What's Next for Offshore Accounts?," the law madesweeping changes affecting many U.S. taxpayers who live abroad orhave foreign financial accounts.

In particular, the law requires a new tax filing for many. Form 8938,which will be due with taxpayers' 2011 returns, is different fromthe Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR), which must be sent to theTreasury Department by June 30 each year.

Unfortunately, that's not all. David Kuenzi, an investment managerwith Thun Financial Advisers in Madison, Wisc., says the new rulesalso serve as a reminder that many taxpayers haven't been makinganother filing to the IRS: Form 8621 to report Passive ForeignInvestment Company (PFIC) holdings abroad.

"This requirement has been on the books for decades, but until nowboth the IRS and taxpayers have often ignored it," says Kuenzi,whose firm often advises U.S. taxpayers who live abroad or haveforeign accounts.

Just as with the other forms, however, the consequences for notfiling the PFIC report can be severe, including interest, penalties,and past tax due, warns Kuenzi. Here's a list of often-overlookedassets that may need to be reported on PFIC, Fatca or FBARr forms.

* Non-U.S. based checking or savings accounts that "sweep" into amoney-market account.* Proceeds from a parent's life insurance policy in Switzerland(or elsewhere) left in an account after the parent died.* Company retirement accounts outside the U.S., such as ORSO accountsin Hong Kong or Second Pillar accounts in Switzerland.* Funds deposited in a foreign account for a child who is living orworking abroad. If the amount is more than $10,000 during the year,FBAR reporting is required.* Foreign trusts with a beneficiary who is a U.S. taxpayer. Saya grandfather living in Germany died and left a trust for all hisgrandchildren, and none of the principal may be distributed for 10years. If one the grandchildren lives and works in the U.S., theentire trust may have to report to the IRS under the new Fatca rules.

Thank you for all you do at PT Shamrock. It is a great service thatyou guys provide, please keep it up. "FREEDOM OR DEATH"

M.

Dear Shamrock:

Have loved your site for many years.....

Is it fair to ask.......

"What is the price range for a 2nd passport?" We may wish to useDr. Freeaman. Yet it is essential to know the range of $$$ we wouldbe looking at.....

Thanx

K

Dear K;

Many thanks for the kind words, which is much appreciated.

Our best 2nd passport offering with the most visa free countriesavailable, with the least hassles and requiresment details follow.

Note that there will be a substantial price increase, we are told,in the near future.

regards

Shamrock

Editor's note: if you are serious about obtaining a great 2ndPassport, verifible and renewable for life, just email our leprechaunand place "2ndPP" in your subject heading.

Dear Shamrock:

Ok, so now I understand it. I have been looking for an XXX, fora while, and it seems that PTShamrock has the best reputation onthe net, so I will be in the office in a few hours and will sendin the application with the supporting documents.

I think logically its better then to go for the XXX. I will speakto my bank and enquire about doing a Western Union transfer asit is the fastest, only problem is it wont be done till Monday,but will need your details anyhow to do it.

K

Dear K:

Thanks for the kind words.

Just order at https://www.ptshamrock.com/order_bwe.html and indicateyour preferred method of payment, i.e. Western Union, at the dropdown menu.

Once we receive your order, we will immediately e-mail you thepay-in particulars.

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to service your privacyrequirements.

PT Shamrock

Dear Shamrock:

Hello,

Thank you for this wonderful site. I am a U.S. citizen. I am asingle parent of a son nearly 18 and a daughter nearly 16.

I would like to know what the total cost would be for all three ofus to gain a second passport in XXXXX? I understand that we need aU.S. passport to start the process? I'm quite sure it is understoodwhy I am seeking such. My eyes are wide open and since the recentNDAA bill was passed I realize time is of the extreme essence.

Sincerely,

D.S.

P.S. Again.... Thank you for this tremendous work that you aredoing. It is vitally important for all who would dare to see.

Dear D.S.

Many thanks for your very kind words, which we greatly appreciate.

The country you query does not offer an instant passport nationalityprogram. Rather they offer a legal residency that leads tonaturalization, then citizenship and hence a passport from thatcountry after about 5 years more or less.

May we recommend our best, least expensive and nationality passportprogram with the least hassles from Central America? There is avery nice discount for children applied for at the same time 18and under with the same last or surname. details below.

Whatever you decide, our leprechaun and ourselves wish you and yourfamily the very best in life.

Kindest regards

PT Shamrock

Dear Shamrock:

Thanks for providing such a service.

I got my bachelor's degree the regular way at a university and I haveto say it was insanely expensive and not worth the cost. Most of theso-called "education" was just brainwashing and social conditioningto make nice little corporate/government slaves. It was not onlya waste of money but a colossal waste of time.

When it comes to knowledge, I've found that nothing trumps lifeexperience. Basically, it comes down to: can you produce the resultsthat you want? And most "teachers" are teaching at that level becausethey cannot produce results in the real world - so what can reallylearn from them?

Each month we offer exclusive information, free privacy programs,access to our newsletter archives and other insider informationfor members only.

Our member's site is accessed by user name and password only. Thisis available to our newsletter subscribers ONLY!

Each month the password will change and you will have to e-mail usfrom your subscribers e-mail address to request the NEW passwordin order to gain access.

As a subscriber to our newsletter you automatically qualifyfor this exclusive service. Just send an e-mail to ptshamrock@ptshamrock.com> and place "Members" in the subjectheading. We will forward to you full details for signing up andgaining access to our Members Site, reserved for you.

If you like our newsletter please tell your friends and associatesabout us. They can subscribe *FREE* by sending an e-mail to: ptbuzz-on@mail-list.com>.

Our pledge!

We never spam our subscribers, never rent or give our subscriberslist to anyone, and unlike other newsletters do not accept paidadvertisements; And of course, our PT Buzz Newsletter is absolutelyfree, just packed full of interesting privacy news and informationwith a tad of humor thrown in for good measure.

We're probably the oldest privacy newsletter on the Internet!

Thank you for your patronage and help in spreading the word.

Shamrock

"The right to privacy is a part of our basic freedoms. Privacyis fundamental to close family ties, competitive free enterprise,the ownership of property, and the exchange of ideas."